Loading...
Agenda Item - 2020-11-17 - Number 10.2 - Council Meeting Minutes 10.2 -0), _0s COUNCIL REPORT 0442, ro OREOOt.4 Subject: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: November 17, 2020 Staff Member: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder Department: City Manager's Office Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑X Motion ❑ Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑X Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Approve minutes as written Recommended Language for Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. Project/ Issue Relates To: ❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑X Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS 1. October 6, 2020, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city ATTACHMENT 1 o ki s4n CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 6, 2020 OR�Oo�' 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. on October 6, 2020. The meeting was held virtually. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Studebaker and Councilors O'Neill, Nguyen, LaMotte, Wendland, Manz, and Kohlhoff Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder; Brian Don, Building Official; Jessica Morey- Collins, Associate Planner; Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Stefan Broadus, Assistant City Engineer; Erica Rooney, City Engineer; Ivan Anderholm, Parks and Recreation Director; Paul Espe, Associate Planner Others Present: Lynn Brokaw, Lake Oswego Meals on Wheels; Dan Goodrich, ICON Architecture /Planning 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION under authority of ORS 192.660 (2) (d) conduct deliberations with persons designated to carry on labor negotiations. The City Council met in Executive Session from 5:03 to 6:15 p.m. 4. PRESENTATION 4.1 Meals on Wheels Proclamation Lynn Brokaw thanked the City Council and the City of Lake Oswego for proclaiming October Meals on Wheels Month. Several restaurants were participating in Meals on Wheels this month and he encouraged people to patronize the restaurants and donate directly to the program at those locations. He confirmed New Seasons Market was participating this year, but was conducting their own collections. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13 October 6, 2020 5. CITIZEN COMMENT • Sarah Ellison Ms. Ellison thanked Council for its work to date on the resolution to acquire the property at 1107 Yates St, adding she was grateful that it was on the agenda this evening. • Edward Conrad Mr. Conrad's testimony was read into the record and was included in the meeting materials. In summary, he urged Council to publicize the Oregon Health Authority's guidance on Halloween. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 Resolution 20-27, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Modifying and Increasing Building Division Permit Fees and Plan Review Fees in Response to Implementation of the State of Oregon Permitting System. Mr. Powell outlined the parameters of the public hearing. Mr. Don presented the Council Report on the resolution, stating the City had recently adopted an e-Permitting System and, during the process, discovered several items did not align with the mandatory state fee guidelines for permits and that the City's permit fees had not been updated since 2005. He proposed fee increases to bring the City in line with the fee rates of other jurisdictions as follows: building permits, 20 percent; electrical permits, 45 percent; mechanical permits, 25 percent; and plumbing permits, 22 percent. Several fees were also added. Mayor Studebaker noted the increases were large and asked if consideration had been given to phasing them in. Mr. Don replied that he believed applicants had been given a bargain in the last 15 years. Usually, jurisdictions increased their fee rates by 5 percent a year. The City had been operating at a loss on inspections fees. The only fee that had been adjusted each year was the hourly rate, which was charged only if a request was made for a one-hour inspection. The Building Department was self-sufficient off of permit fees and had been taking money from the plan review side to subsidize the permit side because the fees were so low. No funds were taken from another department. He confirmed the proposed fees were still cheaper than Portland's and those of larger cities like Beaverton. He had compared Lake Oswego's permit fees to those of cities with similar populations in the Portland metro area and the adopted the rates of those cities. Councilor Wendland asked if the plan review fees were too high. Mr. Don replied that those fees were based on a percentage of the permit fee. An attachment in the meeting materials addressed third-party charges. For example, when an inspector was hired at an hourly rate to fill in for an absent inspector, the charge was $110 an hour. Councilor Wendland stated he did not have a problem with the fees matching those of other jurisdictions, but if both the plan review fee and permit fee funds rose, it could produce a surplus. Mr. Don clarified that during good times in a building department, plan review fees helped pay for the life of a project, like a two-year school project. Because times had been good and a lot of construction was still taking place during COVID-19, the Building Department had been fine, but it would be hit hard during a City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 October 6, 2020 downturn in the permitting process. Councilor Wendland asked if the money was carried forward to ensure a positive fund balance. Mr. Don confirmed that was correct and noted an emergency fund was also kept to allow building departments in the State of Oregon to float during the six-month downturns. No public testimony was given and Mayor Studebaker closed the hearing. Mayor Studebaker moved to adopt Resolution 20-27. Councilor Kohlhoff seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors LaMotte, Wendland, Manz, Kohlhoff, O'Neill, and Nguyen voting `aye.' (7-0) 6.2 Appeal of the Development Review Commission's Denial of Tree Removal Application at 381 9th Street. TR#499-19-05510/AP 20-01 Mr. Powell outlined the parameters of the public hearing and asked if any Councilors had any ex parte contacts, bias, or conflicts of interest. None were declared. Staff Report Ms. Morey-Collins entered two new comments into the record, Exhibits G-210 and G-211, which had been distributed this afternoon. The applicant's request had been reviewed by the Development Review Commission (DRC) on August 3, 2020. The applicant had the burden of proof to demonstrate all of the Type II tree removal criteria in LOC 55.02.080 were met. Criterion 1 required that the trees proposed to be removed would have outgrown their landscape area, that their removal was part of a landscape plan, or would enable construction of a development allowed or approved pursuant to Code or other applicable development regulations. The applicant provided a site plan showing the proposed development relative to the root protection zones of the trees. The trees were requested to be removed for development purposes to construct a new zero lot line dwelling, a detached garage and guest room, a driveway, and a required on-site stormwater system all of which were permitted in the zone. Tree 10300 was located in the footprint of the proposed driveway and was within 6 ft 6 inches of the proposed garage and guest room and Tree 10304 was located within 2 ft 6 inches of the proposed garage and guest room. The DRC found that the application did not comply with Criterion 1 because, without an arborist's report to substantiate that the trees could not be accommodated with the proposed development due to potential damage to the critical root protection zones, the applicant had not established that the tree removal was for development purposes. The DRC found the trees to be large, healthy, mature Douglas firs significant to the neighborhood character and aesthetics based on their size, distinctive character, and being the only remaining trees on the site. The applicant did not provide evidence to the contrary. According to Code, trees might only be approved for removal if one of the exceptions to Criterion 3 was met. The DRC found the applicant had not met Exception B because they did not submit any materials demonstrating that alternatives had been considered for development on the site in accordance with the zone's dimensional and development standards, or why alternatives would not be reasonable. No arborist's report or other evidence was provided by the applicant establishing the distance from the subject tree at which development would or would not cause removal of the tree. This precluded the ability of the applicant to meet their burden of City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 October 6, 2020 proof to show that no reasonable alternative existed to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. The DRC denied the application because it found that Criteria 1 and 3 were not met. The applicant's Notice of Intent to Appeal to the City Council stated that he had worked with City staff and no viable alternative solution was found to the removal of the trees. However, the applicant did not specify why he believed the DRC erred in its decision. The Council's decision options were to tentatively affirm or reverse the DRC's decision to deny the application. Based on the Council's tentative decision, staff would present the findings, conclusion, and order finalizing the decision on October 20. Councilor LaMotte pointed out the problem with the Development Code and trees kept recurring. Hard line site plans were done and trees were later removed if a problem arose. He asked if moving the entire project to the northwest had been considered followed by granting an exception or variance to the builder so the trees could be avoided by going several feet into the setbacks. He also inquired about flipping the southern house's garage to the front so one driveway would be entered from 9th St and one entered from the alley. The southern house would then have beautiful tree growth for their back yard. He understood variances and exceptions were for unique situations and this was a commercial corridor that could shift into the right-of-way (ROW) and not cause any problem with the street line for the mixed-use street. He noted that if the developer did not want to go through the time and effort of a variance, they would still have to take the time to go through the DRC and through Council. Ms. Numanoglu responded that the City could not compel an applicant to apply for a variance. The applicant was allowed the development as permitted by Code and could apply for a variance which the City would encourage. Councilor LaMotte asked if the City could suggest a variance to the applicant and asked why the trees were not dealt with in the beginning with a possible variance. Mayor Studebaker pointed out that the issue had arisen a number of times and staff was not in a position to do anything about it. Councilor LaMotte responded that he would ask the applicant why it was not done in the beginning and why staff kept resisting going outside of a building's envelope by a few feet. Ms. Numanoglu stated the question could be asked of the applicant but, ultimately, it was up to the applicant to decide whether or not to apply. The applicant in this case had built many different projects in the city and was very well aware of the variance process. Staff was happy to suggest a variance to applicants. Referring to the site plan, she noted the blue area indicated the setbacks for the primary structure. The detached garage and guest suite were allowed to have a reduced setback up to 15 ft in the rear and it had 5 ft setbacks on either side. If the garage was moved to the front, it would still have to maintain a 25-ft front yard setback which would push the dwelling towards the rear of the lot and result in a reduction in its footprint. Also, consideration would need to be given to the 30 ft setback in the rear yard. She confirmed that adjusting the setbacks in a variance was possible if the applicant desired. Councilor O'Neill pointed out the burden was not on City staff to do the applicant's work. This applicant had built numerous dwellings and understood the Code. Staff should not be in the situation where they would be designing for an applicant; their role was to uphold the Codes set by Council. He recalled that this occurrence was only the fourth in eight years during the building of hundreds of homes. The variance process was expensive and time consuming. Councilor Wendland understood, based on Ms. Numanoglu's explanation, that the applicant failed to do certain tasks. He asked if the applicant could apply to remove the trees because of City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 October 6, 2020 the impact of part of a building structure. He was not referring to just the footprint, but wanted to know if the applicant missed applying information that Council needed to make a decision to remove the trees or if the trees could not be removed because of the Code. Ms. Numanoglu replied that the DRC determined the applicant did not provide an alternatives analysis or an arborist's report stating how far away the building needed to be in order to preserve the trees. The DRC also found that the applicant did not meet his burden of proof to show that the removal was for development purposes and that no reasonable alternative existed to allow the properties to be as permitted in the zone. She confirmed the applicant had been issued a tentative decision to approve and then the DRC denied the application. The applicant could also reapply. Testimony of Applicant Mr. Goodrich stated he had considered the available options and had adhered to the yard setbacks to come up with a placement for the building. The diameter of the trees and the root line was so large, it made no difference where the buildings were placed when trying to stay within the yard setbacks. In trying to establish an alternate position for the buildings in the front yard, they would have had to be moved so far to the west or front that very little space would be left to develop. The trees had simply outgrown their suburban site and consumed one-third of it. Even in discussion with the arborist, a decision could not be reached as to whether the trees would survive the placement and construction of the buildings. Currently, if the buildings were placed there, the trees would not survive. No distance was available to provide an adequate building between the root line of the trees and the yard setbacks. Building the garage in the front would bring an entirely different aspect because the entry to the garage would become a utility surface and should be located off of the alley. He was unsure if it would be appropriate to have the front yard facing the alley in this case. The entire stretch was not well developed. Though they had looked for alternatives, none could be found. An appropriate building size could not be found due to the small lots, and the buildings could not be located at a sufficient distance from the trees to provide any advantage whether they were attached or detached. Applying for variances at that point would be a difficult choice because it was unknown if the issues could be addressed sufficiently for a variance to be approved. The Planning Department said a variance could be applied for, and he had considered it, but no additional support was offered. He did not know what he would be getting himself into with a variance compared to knowing how to deal with the large trees on a small lot. A conflict existed because the building could not be built on the parcel without an enormous amount of manipulation of the yards with multiple variance applications and for a variety of other issues. The trees were so large that it did not make any difference where the buildings were placed and it seemed like the only reasonable answer was to ask to remove them. Councilor LaMotte noted the 90 homes in his neighborhood accessed their driveways and garages from the front and he did not fully understand Mr. Goodrich's point. It had taken the applicant longer to go through the DRC and then come to Council than it would have if he had requested a variance and the result was still unknown. He asked if the project's architect could create a couple more designs with access in the front. It was possible to go into the setbacks if staff believed it made sense in special cases. Mr. Goodrich replied a driveway located in the front needed to be a certain length to allow for sufficient room so a car did not encroach into the sidewalk. The garage would take 20 ft, the driveway would take another 20 ft, and it would not City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 October 6, 2020 be as aesthetically pleasing. Councilor LaMotte responded by noting staff had approved a variance on Lakeview with a 5-foot driveway and no street parking. Councilor O'Neill confirmed the previous home on the site had been a single-family structure and the applicant would be building a duplex there. He stated it was an example of why House Bill 2001 was a bad bill because it would increase mass on properties that were designed for single-family residences. Mr. Goodrich confirmed that a single-family home could still be built on the site, but that was not what the developer requested. Councilor O'Neill stated he understood why the applicant was trying to maximize what could be built because the site was allowed to have multi-family, but an alternative existed to build a single-family home. Ms. Numanoglu noted the zone was R-7.5 which only allowed a single-family dwelling. What was proposed was a zero-lot line dwelling that would be attached on one wall with the house to the north. She clarified that the project was not multi-family. Mayor Studebaker confirmed there was no public testimony in support of the appeal and called for testimony in opposition. Testimony in Opposition of the Appeal • Alan Arora Mr. Arora noted the applicant had said the DRC erred in the unanimous decision to deny the application because the architect had worked with City staff to conform to City design standards and no viable alternative solution was found. The decision to remove the two trees was supported by both the City's arborist and the applicant's arborist. He did not believe an applicant arborist's report was supported either as part of the Type II application for the public to see or for the DRC to consider; therefore, any reference to it could not be considered in the appeal hearing. Further, the unsupported note from the City's consulting arborist that was scribbled on a paper copy of a City staff member's email was also not made available during the DRC hearing and, as such, no discussion of either arborists' findings could occur in this appeal because no arborist documentation was previously submitted. The DRC denied the application on two distinct and separate grounds: One, no evidence existed about the impact of the construction on the trees; two, no reasonable alternatives were presented. Those were two separate findings, so even if the second option was found to be in error, the first would still apply in denying the appeal and could not be overturned because no new evidence could be submitted to counter the finding. The staff report confirmed that the applicant did not submit an arborist's report and noted only that the City's contract arborist found that the trees were considered generally healthy with no reference to the size of the root ball or whether the trees could survive the development as proposed. Comments in the DRC meeting minutes showed no evidence existed regarding the construction causing the removal of the tree as the size of the root ball was not known, and no evidence of reasonable alternatives was presented to try to avoid the problem, and along with the lack of an arborist's report, the tree removal application was denied unanimously. Therefore, the decision should be affirmed by the City Council and the appeal denied. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 October 6, 2020 • Gary Granger Mr. Granger spoke on behalf of the Evergreen Neighborhood Association. He noted the DRC found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof as required by Code. This information was known at the time of the application. The application was tentatively approved by the Planning Department in the absence of any evidence submitted to fulfill the requirements, so the DRC's decision demonstrated the initial decision for tentative approval was flawed. Insufficient information was in the record to deny the application at the outset after the initial comment period. The timeline of events in the record showed the application was made on November 7, 2019. Inexplicably, no public comments were made in the record because the application was not reopened until April 22, 2020. The process had now gone into October when the application could have been denied at the time of the application. The applicant said that they did not apply for variances, and staff had noted the City could not require variances. Variances were not necessary if the applications would be approved without any review. No arborist's report was submitted by the applicant about alternate plans. It had been stated that the trees needed to be removed because of the construction, and the applicant had noted that it would not make any difference where the buildings were sited because the trees were too large. Other buildings in the area were located within 4 to 10 feet of trees as large as those on the applicant's site. The notion that the trees had outgrown their suburban site, as the applicant had stated was demonstrated to be false simply by standing on the site and looking around. No arborist's report was available from the City or from anyone else when the tentative approval was given. The arborist's report was not requested until after the neighborhood association for which he was speaking appealed the initial approval. What was submitted was not a report, but rather was handwritten notes on a piece of paper, and those notes were used to construct the staff report after the fact as a justification for the tentative approval that was made in the absence of any evidence from the applicant that would meet the criteria. If it had been handled properly, construction could be underway by now with the trees saved. • Diana Boom Ms. Boom stated she supported Mr. Granger's comments and those of the other speaker. She urged Council to support the DRC's decision to deny the application. She noted that the Code allowed exceptions based on the physical characteristics of a lot and suggested adding significant trees as one of those exceptions so trees could be saved in that manner. • Betsy Wosko Ms. Wosko asked Council to confirm the DRC decision, but she believed part of the DRC's reasoning was flawed because it did not consider the Comprehensive Plan in regard to its findings. The Comprehensive Plan addressed healthy ecosystems for which findings could be used to balance private property rights. In this case, discussion concerned a garage and a house which could be relocated on the property without harming two trees. She believed the true reason developers wanted trees removed was due to convenience and profitability. Local government's role, and the Planning Department's role in particular, was not to make business more profitable for developers, but to protect and defend the community and effectuate the intent of state and local comprehensive plans, and that included preserving the magnificent Douglas firs. She asked the Council to not allow the trees to be cut down. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 October 6, 2020 Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Goodrich stated he was looking at the arborist's report in reference to the comments about not having received it. It was prepared on August 14 and was sent to the City. The report showed the true line and the critical root zones at issue. He had emailed the report just now to Ms. Numanoglu. Staff had confirmed the report was not in the record. A lot of discussion had taken place between the applicant's team and the arborist as the report would show. The location of the garage and house were in the critical root zones. A rebuttal opinion addressed whether building should take place on the roots, but a competent foundation could not be built on organic material. Whether the little garage next door was still standing was not a viable comparison because the proposed buildings were heavier. The roots of the trees were too big to take care of. Other options could be considered if a variance were a reasonable approach. A variance had not been completely discussed because it was common sense that the trees were just too big and the existing setback requirements would not push the buildings out of that zone because the trees were simply too large. Moving the garage forward might be possible, but the complications of a variance were equally as arduous as dealing with the tree removal. He did not believe any other reasonable solution was available without going with variances, and he could not ask for those at the same time because he needed to find out if a variance would be allowed. The applicant team was not trying to deal with the difficulty by just cutting down the trees to make it more convenient; no one would want to cut a tree down. Councilor LaMotte referred to Mr. Goodrich's use of the phrase "common knowledge" and said that might refer to his team, but might not be common knowledge for everyone. He had repeatedly referred to a variance, but had spent more time coming to Council with an appeal than a variance would have taken. Variances were for reasonable requests, and the applicant could have tried for a variance by offering alternatives, such as flipping the garage, to see if staff believed it would work. He asked why the applicant believed the project was too complicated for a variance. Mr. Goodrich replied the Planning Department approved the location of the garage and the applicant had gone to the DRC with the approval that had been offered to the team as a solution. He could have spoken to staff about a variance but, at the point of submission, he was in compliance with the Code and had to deal with the tree removal issue. A variance had risks; the team could have requested one, but with the Planning Department's approval, they believed a stronger case was to go to the DRC. Mayor Studebaker confirmed there were no further comments and closed the public hearing. Councilor LaMotte moved to tentatively affirm the DRC's 6 to 0 decision and deny Tree Removal Application 499-19-05510 and direct staff to present findings, conclusions and an order finalizing the Council's tentative decision on October 20, 2020. Councilor Kohlhoff stated it appeared that the City's arborist assisted in the applicant's case, but the information was too sketchy. The DRC's decision was clear that what was presented was insufficient based on their understanding of the record. It did not appear that decision was arbitrary or out of line, and she agreed that it was not staffs or anyone else's job to do the work for the applicant. She did not want to get embroiled in trying to make the proposal possible or not, or to get involved with a remand to the DRC which did not appear reasonable. She would vote to affirm the DRC's decision to deny the application. She agreed with Councilor LaMatte's City Council Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 October 6, 2020 assertion that the same issues with trees kept arising, and believed the packet had done well in showing that the DRC heard such cases all the time and were saying 'no.' Mayor Studebaker stated he would vote 'no' because it was clear to him, based on the experience in his own house, Mr. Goodrich's statements that the trees would not survive that close to the building were accurate. If the building did not kill the tree, the foundation, walls, and ceilings would crack. It was clear the trees had to be removed. Councilor Wendland believed the applicant had not met the burden of proof and that the process needed to be upheld. The applicant could choose to resubmit the application with an arborist's report that proved the trees needed to be taken down. He believed Council needed to rely on staff and processes in order to have a good, clean system. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, with Councilors LaMotte, Wendland, Manz, Kohlhoff, O'Neill, and Nguyen voting 'aye'. Mayor Studebaker voted 'no' (6-1) 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 7.6 Findings, Conclusions and Order Affirming the Development Review Commission's Decision Approving an Application for a Development Permit to Construct a 160-unit Multi-Family Residential Structure at 5600 Meadows Road [LU 19-0041] This item was taken out of sequence. Mr. Powell highlighted the Council Report, noting Council held a public hearing on September 8 and had made a tentative decision to deny the appeal and affirm the DRC's decision to allow the Development Permit. Councilor Wendland moved to adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order for LU 19-0041 as presented. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Wendland, Manz, O'Neill, and Nguyen voting 'aye.' Councilors LaMotte and Kohlhoff voted 'no.' (5-2) Council returned to the regular order of the agenda. 7.1 Resolution 20-34, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Declaring the Public Necessity to Acquire Property at 1107 Yates Street for Park Purposes Mayor Studebaker stated that due to fruitful discussions with the owner, Council would not be considering the resolution of necessity. 7.2 Water Systems Studies Engineering Services Contract Award City Council Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 October 6, 2020 Mr. Broadus presented the Council Report, noting in 2018 the City had performed an update to the Water Systems Master Plan (WSMP). The objectives of the WSMP covered several recommended construction projects, including projects to rehabilitate or reconstruct pump stations. Also recommended were several more detailed studies, three of which were part of the item he was presenting to Council for its approval: A planning of the storage needs and options for the south side of the city and the best locations for additional storage, and geotechnical and structural assessments for the reservoirs on the south side and north side of the lake. Information would also be gathered regarding the vulnerabilities of the reservoirs during a seismic event and the mitigation options for those types of events, the cost/benefit of performing them, the best strategy for some aging pump stations in the system, and determining the best high and low season demand operational levels to maintain in the reservoirs. Councilor Wendland stated he was in support of the proposal, noting that the studies would provide a blueprint to follow for many years, and received confirmation it would be the first and the last consulting project to evaluate the water system needs for the foreseeable future. Mr. Broadus replied other study efforts were identified in the WSMP, but those would be several years out as other physical construction projects began that were already identified in the WSMP, as well as others that would be identified through these planning projects. Councilor Wendland observed that almost a million dollars would be spent, although the city was not growing substantively. He expected the studies to cost much less. Ms. Rooney said that a WSMP update was done a couple of years ago and brought to Council which had tens of millions of dollars of work and studies. She acknowledged that the city was not growing, but the infrastructure was getting older. Many of the reservoirs were near end of life. The WSMP addressed the replacement of that infrastructure as well as some expansion issues. She offered to review the WSMP with Council. Councilor Wendland believed that almost $900,000 was expensive; two engineers could be hired to do the work at a more reasonable cost. Mr. Broadus replied that the scope of the study included a small army of water engineers, technicians, a highly qualified dive team to enter the reservoirs to perform assessments, and specialties for creating models to project growth and how to move water around the city. Councilor LaMotte asked if some of what was proposed for $900,000 was done for the new water plant project, especially on the south side of the city. Mr. Broadus replied that recent big investments were made in the water system, much of it on the south side of the city. The proposed plans would consider other issues, such as new storage facilities. Also, many reservoirs were nearing the end of their lives, and the analysis would consider the next best alternatives for additional storage. The previous large Investments concerned how to treat and move water to the end users. This investment regarded water storage and seismic assessments. Councilor Wendland moved to award a Personal Services contract to West Yost in the amount of $898,635 for Engineering Services for Water System Studies (S-01, S-02, and S-03) as recommended in the 2018 Water System Master Plan. Mayor Studebaker seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors LaMotte, Wendland, Manz, Kohlhoff, O'Neill, and Nguyen voting `aye.' (7-0) City Council Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 October 6, 2020 7.3 Jean Road/Pilkington Road Intersection Improvement Mr. Broadus presented the Council Report seeking approval of a concept on how to move forward with a transportation project at the intersection of Jean Road and Pilkington Road which had been identified in the 2014 Transportation System Plan (TSP) as failing its intended level of service. A subsequent study in 2017 found it met warrants for a traffic signal. In 2019, staff began a study of the design of the project and considered options other than a traffic signal to make sure they found the right solution before designing began. Three options were considered: the no-build, the traffic signal, and a mini roundabout. The no-build option showed a level of service that was close to Level F, the lowest possible, by 2040, and City policy was to maintain levels of service at intersections at Level E or greater. A traffic signal or a mini roundabout showed the average delays were reduced to a Level B or C, considered to be a high-performing intersection. Driving the decision to eliminate the roundabout idea was the magnitude of impact on the adjacent properties. A traffic signal would have a much smaller impact, and staff recommended traffic signal treatment because of the lower total cost, though it was very close to that of a mini roundabout. The traffic signal was also preferred due to the heavy crossing activity by children attending the middle school in the area. Staff had recommended the traffic signal to a well-attended neighborhood meeting in August and to the Transportation Advisory Board in September. If approved, construction would start at the intersection late next year. Councilor Kohlhoff stated she did not like roundabouts but she spent recreation time in Bend which had roundabouts and people there insisted they moved traffic better. She asked if there were two schools of thought about which option moved traffic more freely or if it was the constraints that determined the decision. Mr. Broadus replied that roundabouts were very efficient and did not break down. The caveat was that a roundabout worked very well when it was in the right place, but the subject intersection was not the right place. Councilor Wendland stated he had wanted a roundabout, but believed the bigger picture regarded the safety for the kids at the school. He believed that rivers had trouble understanding pedestrians in roundabouts. He asked if traffic lights were really not as effective as roundabouts. Mr. Broadus replied that it depended upon the intersection and on the split of traffic. A roundabout worked well when traffic was approaching an intersection in roughly equivalent volumes because it equally dispersed it. When the split was disproportional, traffic signals would start to perform similarly or even outperform a roundabout. In this intersection, similar splits were seen, so the roundabout outperformed the traffic signal to some degree. The average delay for a mini roundabout would be about 12 seconds versus the average delay of 14 seconds for a traffic signal. In 2040, based on the growth projections, the estimated delay was 17.8 seconds for a signal and 18.14 seconds for a roundabout. The difference was negligible. Councilor Manz stated she agreed with Mr. Broadus on roundabouts and recalled a clever roundabout she had seen in Spain, but drivers were confounded by stoplights that were installed there because of a nearby elementary school. The issue was an example of bureaucratic craziness that she did not want to see in Lake Oswego. She would be voting in favor. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 October 6, 2020 Councilor Wendland moved to approve the traffic signal alternative for the Jean Road / Pilkington Road Intersection Improvements (TSP 62), Work Order 273, and direct staff to begin the engineering design process. Councilor LaMotte seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors LaMotte, Wendland, Manz, Kohlhoff, O'Neill, and Nguyen voting `aye.' (7-0) 7.4 Woodmont Natural Park Right-of-Way Dedication Mr. Anderholm said that the County required that all parcels for Woodmont Natural Park be within the City. Atwater Road on the south edge of the park was a County road under County jurisdiction. Parking was allowed on the park property; however, the public strongly indicated that they wanted a reduction in parking and to allow parking only along Atwater Road. Regardless, the development of the park would require a dedication of the right-of-way (ROW). The City approached the DRC for a major variance for on-site parking in order to locate it where the public desired. Clackamas County gave the City two options: To dedicate 4.5 feet of the park and develop 27 feet of road, curb, sidewalk and planting strip; or to develop the full 26-feet width of the asphalt in that location with a rural characteristic that matched closely with the rest of Atwater Road. The City chose the latter option, essentially providing on-street parallel parking in front of the park and requested approval of a 4.5 fppt dedication of Woodmont Natural Park frontage to Clackamas County along Atwater Road. Councilor Wendland moved to dedicate 4.5 feet of Woodmont Natural Park along Atwater Road as additional right-of-way to enable park development per LU 18-0039 and County road requirement. Councilor LaMotte seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors LaMotte, Wendland, Manz, O'Neill, and Nguyen voting `aye.' Councilor Kohlhoff abstained. (6-0-1) 7.5 Ordinance 2824, An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Lake Oswego Three Tax Lots Consisting of 2.07 Acres at 16556, 16524, 16552 and 16494 Boones Ferry Road (21E07DD02300, 21E07DD02400, and 21E07DD02500) and a Portion of the Boones Ferry Road Right-of-Way; Declaring City of Lake Oswego Zoning Pursuant to LOC 50.01.004.5(a-c); and Removing the Territory from Certain Districts (AN 19- 0003) Mr. Powell asked if any Councilors wished to make any declarations of ex parte contacts, bias, or conflict of interest. None were declared. Mr. Espe presented the Council Report, noting the properties under consideration were located along the south side of Boones Ferry Road and would be zoned West Lake Grove Residential Mixed Use (WLG RMU). The properties also abutted the Lake Grove Urban Renewal District, but would not automatically become a part of that District upon annexation to the city, so separate actions were needed, which included amending the Lake Grove Urban Renewal District Plan and annexing the properties to that District. In June 2018, the property owners entered into an annexation agreement, attached as Exhibit 3, and agreed to have the City Council Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 October 6, 2020 annexation allowed 90 days after Clackamas County issued a certificate of occupancy, or September 1, whichever came first. Staff recommended approval of the proposed annexation. Councilor LaMotte moved to enact Ordinance 2824. Councilor Wendland seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors LaMotte, Wendland, Manz, Kohlhoff, O'Neill, and Nguyen voting `aye.' (7-0) 7.7 Approval of Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Regular Meeting September 1, 2020 Regular Meeting September 12, 2020 Special Meeting September 24, 2020 Special Meeting September 29, 2020 Special Meeting Mayor Studebaker moved to approve the minutes as written. Councilor Wendland seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors LaMotte, Wendland, Manz, Kohlhoff, O'Neill, and Nguyen voting `aye.' (7-0) 8. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL No information was offered. 9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS No reports were made. 10. ADJOURNMENT, CITY COUNCIL Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder Approved by the City Council on Kent Studebaker, Mayor City Council Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 October 6, 2020