Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2021-03-03 Luscher Area Task Force Meeting Meeting Minutes March 3, 2021 Task Force members present: Heidi Schrimsher; Richard Herman; Kasey Holwerda; Nancy Gronowski; Laura Masterson; and Sandy Intraversato Staff Present: Jeff Munro; Jamie Inglis; Jan Wirtz; Megan Big John; Charity Taylor (Facilitator) The Task Force began by reviewing determinants for environmental education. Heidi Schrimsher stated that she thought the determinants were for urban agriculture as well. Charity Taylor clarified that previously the determinants were presented just for environmental education (Attachment 1). The group discussed changing the language about the program determinants to reflect that programs do not have to incorporate all the determinants. Members discussed how there are existing programs that do not fit within any of the programming determinants. Jan Wirtz reiterated that the programming determinants were crafted during previous conversations about environmental education, noting the determinants do not align with existing programming if taken out of the environmental education context. Ms. Wirtz offered that if the Venn diagram is to encompass all programming a solution would be to add a circle labeled “recreation” because the Luscher Area is also a recreation site. Jamie Inglis noted that although urban agriculture and environmental education is a priority in the area, recreation is also an interest of the public. Megan Big John commented that the Task Force’s objective pertains specifically to urban agriculture and environmental education. Ms. Schrimsher expressed concern about events expanding in the Luscher Area to the detriment of urban agriculture and environmental education. Nancy Gronowski noted that the Luscher Area is a unique place and that programming such as BMX biking could be done elsewhere in the City. Ms. Taylor suggested expanding the environmental education program determinants statement to state that environmental education with the noted components should be prioritized where possible. The Task Force then discussed updates to the guiding principles document (Attachment 2). Laura Masterson asked how guiding principles and program determinants were related to one another. Ms. Schrimsher noted that the paragraph in the program determinant document should be included in the guiding principles document as well. Members agreed on the recommendation format drafted by Ms. Gronowski. The task force discussed whether having a timeframe for the stages of development would be useful, as many of the recommendations are not fully funded. Ms. Gronowski suggested referencing the site plan at the beginning of the guiding principles. Ms. Taylor asked members whether they agreed with CSA field expansion as the way to increase urban agriculture. Ms. Wirtz noted that the expansion of CSA may need to take place in a later stage, as it would affect surrounding priorities, such as new parking and additional buildings. She also asked the group whether expansion of the CSA fields meant expanding existing programs or if there would be space for other forms of community supported agriculture. Ms. Schrimsher and Kasey Holwerda noted that community supported agriculture would be broadly defined and not limited to current programs. Ms. Inglis noted that buildings and infrastructure are listed together with creating programs for livestock and perennial crops, suggesting that there should be infrastructure in place before expanding programs if current buildings are at capacity. Ms. Gronowski and Ms. Schrimsher stated that demonstration gardens are integrated into landscaping that will take place as a result of a new parking area. The group decided to eliminate stages to allow flexibility in execution of recommendations. Ms. Schrimsher stated that she thought there would be more details in the recommendations. Sandy Intraversato agreed, also noting that some details will need input from people with expertise in particular subject areas. Ms. Wirtz suggested combining CSA and urban agriculture expansion for purposes of sequencing recommendations. Jeff Munro said that the recommendation could be to expand urban agriculture, and that CSA does not need to be explicitly stated, as it is a part of the overall expansion. Ms. Holwerda gave clarification on aspects of the Historic Preservation and Interpretation recommendations: • The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) intends to make the historic core a City landmark once it is the city limits. Since that process is independent of the Task Force, it was deleted from the recommendations; • The Luscher Barn restoration would go through HRAB once it becomes a city landmark; • The farmhouse is unlikely to be a museum, but upon becoming a City landmark, HRAB will be part of the process of restoring its exterior; • HRAB is involved in the restoration process of any building within the historic core should the area be incorporated into the UGB. Ms. Schrimsher and Ms. Gronowski discussed the need for a natural resource restoration plan. The Task Force reviewed the maintenance and facilities list (Attachment 3), noting their preference for an agriculture-themed play area in lieu of a previously suggested treehouse structure. Ms. Gronowski suggested having information about the current status of the UGB application included in the report. Ms. Taylor said that the next steps will be for the Parks and Recreation Department to create a workplan for Luscher Area development that incorporates the recommendations put forth by the Task Force. History Urban Agriculture Natural Resources Physical Environment of Luscher Area In alignment with the vision of the Luscher Area Master Plan, the Luscher Area Task Force seeks to continue the of integration history, urban agriculture and natural resources within all programming. Central to all three tenets are diversity, equity and inclusion, climate change and sustainability. Attachment 1 Background The Luscher Area Task Force was established in March 2020 to provide prioritized recommendations to the Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Director regarding implementation of urban agriculture and environmental education in the Luscher Area. Members of the Task Force represent the following entities and organizations: • Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Advisory Board • Friends of Luscher Farm • Friends of the Rogerson Clematis Garden • 47th Avenue Farm • Luscher Community Gardeners • Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Staff Over 11 months the Task Force developed recommendations based on the Luscher Area Master Plan (2013) and Agricultural Plan (2017). The following guiding principles and strategies inform their recommendations: Guiding Principles • Protect the natural and historical resources of the Luscher Area; • Provide the appropriate facilities to accommodate the programming and educational needs; • Advance and expand urban agriculture; • Promote environmental education; • Restore natural resources and habitat; • Protect critical ecological functions; • Address food insecurity in underserved populations; and • Ensure that Luscher Area is a community resource available to all. Strategies • Match resources, facilities and infrastructure to program needs; • Promote synergy between history, agriculture, environmental education and natural resources facilities and programs; • Integrate programming, education and facilities for urban agriculture and environmental education; • Ensure that diverse groups of participants are engaged in all projects and educational opportunities; • Strengthen and expand existing partnerships; • Design and utilize facilities to optimize programming opportunities; • Develop sustainable facilities and programs; • Address climate change and ways to mitigate its effects; • Use citizen science; and • Provide flexible spaces that can accommodate a variety of uses. Attachment 2 The City of Lake Oswego applied to Metro earlier this year requesting an expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary to include Luscher, Firlane and Crowell properties. The Task Force’s priorities are scalable to begin master plan implementation independent of the UGB application process. Recommendations The Task Force recommends expanding the urban agriculture portions of the Luscher Area where appropriate, rehabilitating the historic core of the farm, protecting and improving the natural resources, and providing a wide variety of programs. Task Force recommendations are staged to encourage intentional development of the Luscher Area. Some tasks in Stages 2 and 3 may be delayed if Metro denies the City’s UGB expansion application. Stage 1: within the next one to three years Stage 2: within the next three to five years Stage 3: within the next five to seven years Specific recommendations are as follows: New and Restored Facilities for Entire Luscher Area Stage 1: • Provide new access and parking • Publicly accessible restrooms • Develop uniform interpretive and directional signage on properties • Centralized storage area for current programming needs • Design maintenance and agricultural operational facilities Stage 2: • Build maintenance and agricultural operational facilities • Build greenhouse classroom • Design Education Center (including offices for programming staff) Stage 3: • Restore Luscher Barn and develop for community programs, with multi-purpose spaces for classes and conferences • Build Education Center Attachment 2 • Build park shelter Urban Agriculture Expansion Stage 1: • Expand CSA fields • Install demonstration gardens • Reconvene Task Force again with additional expertise for livestock and perennial crop programs Stage 2: • Develop Urban Agriculture educational programs • Expand existing agricultural programs • Build livestock facilities and infrastructure and begin programs • Build perennial crop facilities and infrastructure and begin programs Stage 3: • Expand Community gardens Historic Expansion Stage 1: • Collaborate with Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) to provide a consistent his- toric narrative, inclusive of Indigenous history (note: HRAB will be involved in Luscher historic core after property is in the UGB) • Seek input from HRAB on interpretive signage on properties Stage 2: • Consider developing a museum and restoring the historic farmhouse • Consult with HRAB about Luscher Barn restoration • Develop historic educational programs Attachment 2 Environmental Education Program Expansion Stage 1: • Leverage existing partnerships for program implementation; cultivate new community relationships Stage 2: • Develop Urban Agriculture, Historic & Natural Resource educational programs • Develop tours for Luscher Area • Expand summer camps and classes • Conduct community survey Natural Resources Restoration Stage 2: • Develop Natural Resource educational programs • Install hedgerows and pollinators to transition between urban ag and natural resources Stage 3: • Install butterfly sanctuary • Other specific programs? Stage 1 Considerations Parking and Access: provide adequate lines of vision for pedestrian and vehicular traffic intersections. Provide adequate accessible parking for current and future uses. Preserve farmland along the road to parking lot. Include turnaround and parking area for school buses. Signage: there is a current need for consistent signage. More wayfinding and educational signage should be added as the area develops. Stage 2 Considerations Maintenance Facility: will improve community safety by removing daily maintenance operations out of the historic core. Please see “Maintenance and Programming Needs” document for additional facility details (Attachment 3). Greenhouse Classroom: a 20’x20’ space with electrical access and a sink to allow for additional Attachment 2 farm programming. Multipurpose Agricultural Operational Facility: will house community supported agriculture and additional agriculture programs; facility space should be flexible to accommodate a broad range of programs over time. Ideally located close to Luscher Area core and near maintenance center. Additional Agricultural Programs: potential programs include introducing animals, bees and fruit trees, farm stands, incubator farms, and using existing CSA fields to showcase historic farming practices. Programs will be provided via community partnerships where appropriate. Specific facilities for animals and other programs will be based on needs determined by Parks and Recreation staff, program provider and readily available financial resources. Type of animal(s) should be finalized prior to discussing necessary facilities. Community Survey (UGB Dependent): City to conduct community outreach to determine interest in environmental education topics to assist with program development. Luscher Area Tours will educate community members, create awareness of available programs and highlight public volunteer opportunities. Stage 3 Considerations Luscher Barn Restoration: internal improvements to the barn should maintain its historic characteristics. Barn will serve as a multipurpose community space, which can be used for programming, meetings and some community events. Additions include restrooms and a prep/staging pending historic review process. Explore use of haymow to enrich historic experience. Community Gardens Expansion: increase number of community garden plots to meet current demand. Increase number of demonstration gardens for educational programming, and reserve plots dedicated to alleviating food insecurity. Park Shelter (UGB Dependent): located behind the Firlane house, the park shelter and restroom facility could be a dual rental and programming space. Urban Agriculture/Environmental Education Center (UGB Dependent): internal area flexible to accommodate program delivery by City staff and independent contractors. Includes a commercial kitchen and pizza oven to allow for farm to table experiences. Overarching Considerations • Intentional trail placement as Luscher Area develops to improve walkability in natural areas and provide convenient access to facilities. • Keep Luscher youth activities in a consolidated area away from vehicular traffic. Attachment 2 • Staff and program funding: Conduct continual internal department assessments to de- termine staff capacity and budget for stages 2 and 3. Assessments will: o Help to further refine feasible implementation and project timelines o Leverage existing resources o Highlight programs suitable for community partnerships Attachments 1. Site plan with Corresponding Notes 2. Current and Potential Partnerships for Program Implementation 3. Programming Determinants 4. Facility Needs for Maintenance and Future Programming Attachment 2 Maintenance Needs: • 4,000 square foot facility • A configuration of approximately 80’ x40’ with three roll up doors that could be a pole barn • This space would house all Parks equipment used at the farm and be the hub for the Natural Resources staff • The area would include space for a table for breaks • With the farm developing and 2 more natural parks coming on we will need room for additional staff and more farm equipment • Ideally in the core of the entire Luscher Area Programming Needs: • Onsite public access restrooms: A permanent restroom facility similar to a park in lieu of paying for portable restrooms • Greenhouse Classroom: Although the school district farm program is in hiatus for now, a greenhouse classroom (20’x20’) with electrical access and a sink could allow for additional farm programming • Small covered areas with seating: Especially along trails, to enjoy throughout the year. Using canopies to determine where permanent seating areas would go as Luscher Area evolves • Signage: Unified professional signage onsite that matches parks signage at other sites • A large deck or park shelter behind Firlane to dedicate as a rental space. Would be used frequently by the community and for existing programming. • “Tree House” type structure: Locate near the Children’s Garden due to the wide variety of children’s programming on the Luscher property and lack of existing playgrounds in the area. • Fire Pit: To use for camp programs, cooking classes, etc. • Storage: Currently farm supplies are stored throughout Luscher Area. It would be more efficient and accessible to have storage in one location. • Signage, restroom and storage Attachment 3 FRCC: • Classroom space in white barn and bunkhouse • Restrooms instead of porta-potties • Outdoor education space by the bunkhouse and/or the white barn • Adequate and convenient parking for FRCC volunteers and visitors • Good access to FRCC greenhouse and work space Attachment 3