Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2021-11-02 E a o s CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ,q; MINUTES V +� November 2, 2021 EGO� 1. CALL TO ORDER, CITY COUNCIL Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. on November 2, 2021. The meeting was held both virtually via video conferencing and in-person. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Buck, Councilors Mboup, Manz, Nguyen, Wendland, Verdick, and Mboup Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Jason Loos, City Attorney; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Erica Rooney, City Engineer I Public Works Director; Shawn Cross, Finance Director; Nadia Ahmed, Human Resources Specialist; Scot Siegel, Economic Development Director; Gert Zoutendijk, Fire Marshal; Kari Linder, City Recorder 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Buck led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT No Public Comment was provided. 4.1 PRIOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP No prior follow-up was provided. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Ordinance 2874, Annexing Property at SW Kimball and SW Baleine Streets (AN 21-0003). Jason Loos, City Attorney, read the parameters of the public hearing, and asked if any members of the Council had any ex parte contacts, including a site visit, any bias, or any financial conflicts of interest. None were heard. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13 November 2, 2021 Paul Espe, Associate Planner, presented the Council Report for three properties being considered for annexation at the southeast corner of Kimball St and Baleine St. One item of public testimony was received from David Brown, included in the packet as Exhibit F-200, against the annexation. The concerns raised in his email would be addressed with the future partitioning of the property in terms of wetland delineation, tree removal, storm water provision, etc. The proposed annexation was owner-initiated and would result in the addition of approximately 2.07 acres of residential land to the City. The property was currently under Clackamas County's jurisdiction and was zoned R-7.5 low-density residential in the Comprehensive Plan and would also be zoned R-7.5 on annexation. The City's Sensitive Land Map designated a resource protection (RP)district over the northeast side of the properties. Pursuant to Code, the RP overlay district would be applied to the properties upon annexation, and the property owners had been informed of such. He addressed other related items including installation and mitigation of a sewer line by the applicant, future improvements to Baleine St., and stormwater facilities. Staff recommended tentative approval of the annexation with the final enactment being deferred until the owner had executed and recorded the covenant to construct and connect to the City sewer line. In response to an inquiry by Councilor Manz, Mr. Espe confirmed other annexations had taken place in the area, and the location of the sewer system 500 feet away from the property added complexity to the application. In response to a question from Mayor Buck, Mr. Espe confirmed the applicant would need to execute the covenant to install the sewer line before the ordinance came back to Council for signature. Council was being asked to tentatively approve the annexation tonight. He further clarified that it would be necessary for the applicant to delineate the wetland, the RP, and file a land use application for the sewer construction. The delineation would be through a standard land use application, including a public process. Lastly, he confirmed the lots were currently vacant. Councilor Wendland asked for a review on what could be developed on land with an RP designation. Mr. Espe replied that if a property was totally encumbered by an RP resource, the Code allowed for the development of a reasonably-sized house-like development on the property. Mayor Buck noted the report stated the single-family dwelling access was taken from Kimball St. Mr. Espe responded that an access from Kimball St already existed, but no dwelling was located on the property. Applicant's Testimony Ed Brockman, Applicant, stated quite a bit of planning for the project had been done already and he would be turning in a pre-application request on Thursday. Meetings had been held in Waluga Park with the Parks Director, City Engineer, and the person in charge of sewer maintenance. Pacific Habitat had examined, surveyed, and conducted a full delineation of the wetlands on Tax Lot 2902. The location of the resource on Tax Lots 3000 and 100 had been tentatively identified and flagged by Pacific Habitat and was yet to be surveyed. Tax Lots 3000 and 100 were originally each platted as two lots and could be reclaimed simply through a request by the property owner through the Clackamas County Assessor according to State Law. In other City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 November 2, 2021 words, five lots of record existed and could be assigned new tax lot numbers and addresses. If the property was annexed, the applicant planned to do some lot line adjustments but had no plans to develop a home, even though he legally could. The lot line adjustments would move the proposed five residences out of the RP zone entirely. • The sewer would be 1,100 ft long in total and would be expensive. The owner had recently purchased the properties and because of the RP zone and no plan for how to develop properties, the cost had not been great. The owner could pay for the sewer and still have a project that made financial sense. • The home builder had built other homes in Lake Oswego. The planned lot sizes would not be less than 8,000 sq ft. Councilor Mboup asked how many trees were located on the property and how the applicant planned to deal with them upon annexation. Mr. Brockman replied the property would be surveyed, and the location of every tree on the property 5 inches in diameter and greater would be mapped and its species identified. He declined to provide an estimate of the number of trees on the property without more data. Tax Lot 2902 was the yard for Tax Lot 15868 and had been cleared, but had some good-sized trees. He had photos of the property before it was cleared, but they were not readily available. A lot of undergrowth and blackberries had moved into the lot. Tax Lots 3000 and 100 in the RP zone would be protected and nothing would be removed other than invasive species, such as blackberries. The impact on the lots to be built on as well as the size of house would be limited according to Code. Tax Lots 3000 and 100 were not full of big Fir trees, but some big Firs existed on Tax Lot 2902 that could be seen in an aerial photo on the City's website. • Neal Bauer Mr. Bauer spoke on behalf of the Carman Garden Homeowners Association (HOA) and was a resident of Tara Place. For as long as he had lived in the neighborhood, the wetlands had turned into a lake for a good part of the winter. The area of the cul-de-sac had been flooded in the past, and the builder had brought in many truckloads of rock and sand to build it up for the four homes developed there. Subsequent runoff from the rain had taken away the land, and the residents had to fill up their backyards with dirt on two occasions. Once someone had dug into the field across from the cul-de-sac to determine if it was buildable and could not find any dry areas. They had taken down trees and carved into the land and could provide no documentation in response to the neighbors' request. The wetland had several hundred trees, including big Birch trees, which provided beautiful scenery, a root structure for the land, and also deadened the sound of traffic from 1-5. His neighbors had just sold their home and had brought someone out who reported the existing sewer already had a belly because of subsidence from the rain it had not been equipped for. Building five homes on Tara PI was outrageous and he found the proposal to be scary because of the fill that would be required and would direct the water through the other houses in the area. He confirmed he was opposed to the annexation. • Stephanie Glazer City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 November 2, 2021 Ms. Glazer stated she was neutral on the annexation, but she was concerned about the sensitive area that she lived adjacent to. She agreed with Mr. Bauer's testimony that the land was under water for many months out of the year. She wanted to make sure that the RP remained in place after annexation and would not be diminished when development was considered. Tax Lots 3000 and 100 had even more standing water than the wetlands already delineated. She wanted the management of that water to be part of the annexation to make sure the water stayed where it was. Allowing the trees to remain would help. The neighbors who had lived there longer than her had spoken about the earlier development on Tara PI that made their properties flood. The sensitive lands overlay was intended to protect the water resource and to maintain the water in its current location. With a few exceptions, most everyone in the area was on a septic system and many residents had invested significant financial resources to install, upgrade, and maintain them. She did not know what the implications were to the neighbors of a new sewer on Kimball St and whether they would need to pay for it. The sewer line would cut directly through the sensitive lands and it seemed like proper care was not being taken to protect the resource. Baleine St was currently a walking and biking path and a very narrow area and she would not want to see it become a major cut-through street. The intersection of Baleine St and Carman Dr was not safe enough to handle additional traffic. Mayor Buck clarified that the installation of the sewer line was part of the Sewer Master Plan and would not have any bearing on others in the area, other than that its extension would make it easier for someone to connect to it if they wanted to, so, in a sense, they would be bearing that expense for the other neighbors. Properties within a close distance to a main were required to connect upon annexation due to the plan that everyone would be on the sewer and not on septic tanks. Martha Bennett, City Manager, added that if someone's septic tank was leaking and creating a health hazard, and they were located within a certain number of feet of a sewer line, they would be required to connect. • Kathy Lundeen Ms. Lundeen said she was neutral to the application and she agreed with the others who testified that standing water remained on the site even during the drought. Tara PI had been a marsh with nesting water birds, turtles, and cattails and it was filled in for a development. The backyard of the neighbor to the left of Tract A had flooded and she needed to dig a pond because the water was displaced from the marsh into her backyard and then into the RP areas. She believed that if the area was annexed, it was Council's responsibility to make sure the remediation was done. She was neutral to the application because she did not know Council's position on the matter. She also believed the wetlands needed to be preserved as habitat. She inquired who would replace the Surface Water Management of Clackamas County as they would no longer be responsible after the annexation. Baleine St was paved only to Carman Dr and the rest was gravel. The City frequently had to add more gravel due to the roadway washing out. It had been a walking path for many years. The condition of the trees on Tax Lots 3000 and 100 was not as good as it used to be which she suspected was because of the extra water and subsequent rot. She had lost several trees to wind and rot. Some beautiful Willamette Valley Oaks were on Tax Lots 3000 and 100 and she strongly believed they should be preserved as habitat for Douglas squirrels and Western gray squirrels. When she needed a new septic system, the City told her that a pumping station or a lifting station was needed, but she had not heard either system mentioned in regard to this annexation. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 November 2, 2021 • Willy Paul Mr. Paul stated he had been neutral to the application but was now against it due to what he had heard from Mr. Brockman. His home was located on the southwesterly corner of the proposed annexation. He was in complete agreement with the previous testimony about the water issues. The wetlands were necessary for the standing water on the property throughout the winter. The sewer on his property had an easement to allow a tie-in from Tax Lot 2902 to Kimball St but he understood it would be for a single-family residence behind his property. He heard Mr. Brockman state the intention to make lot line adjustments to Tax Lots 100 and 3000 through the county to mitigate some of the RP boundary issues. He understood the intention was to develop five homes on the subdivided tax lots which meant to him five homes located on a remainder of Tax Lots 3000 and 2902. It seemed to be an extremely dense amount of development that would take advantage of the RP area in order to gain that density. He proposed R-15 zoning instead of the R-7.5 designation to help mitigate some of the density issues and some of the water issues relative to the RP area. He was concerned about the mention in the application that no additional impervious surfaces would be introduced to the properties which to him meant no paved streets and no driveways and he asked for clarification. He also asked what provision was made for the neighbors to be involved in the development process after the annexation. He asked if a storm drain system was also considered part of the mitigation to address some of the water accumulation issues. Lastly, he asked about how Goal 10 would apply to the properties in the RP area as it was not mentioned in the Council Report. Councilor Manz clarified with staff that only the annexation was being considered tonight and not the development of the property, nor was consideration being given to the ruling on proportionality of what can or cannot be done with development on the property. Mr. Paul understood that the recommendation in the Council Report for annexation maintained the R-7.5 zoning and asked if a process existed post-annexation for reconsideration of that zoning. Ms. Bennett clarified the annexation would come in under the pre-determined zoning in the Comprehensive Plan. HB 2001 was not material in this case regarding zoning. Mayor Buck added that rezoning would be a separate consideration in another public process. • Natalie Diloreto Ms. Diloreto stated she lived in the field Mr. Bauer referred to in his testimony earlier. Her home backed up to Baleine St which was now just a beautiful walking trail for families and their dogs. The wetlands started about halfway through her property and the water reached knee-depth in winter. She was concerned that if it already became that deep, where it would go if more development took place and what studies would be done to make that determination. The residents took great pride in the existing trees and her property backed up to some beautiful trees. Though it was private property, kids were allowed to play there and in her field when it was dry enough. It offered a great sense of community and she asked if the trees were removed, would it mean that Baleine St would become an actual street instead of a trail. Her backyard was a whole ecosystem with several types of wildlife and it would be sad if it was taken away. Councilor Manz clarified that the part of Baleine St indicated in blue was a trail and became gravel at the location of Tax Lot 3000. She confirmed with staff that it was a right-of-way in the City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 November 2, 2021 City of Lake Oswego. Ms. Bennett cautioned against assuming Baleine St would become an improved street. She advised questions to staff be held until Council's deliberation. Mayor Buck called for the applicant's rebuttal. Mr. Brockman noted he had spoken to the tentative plans to develop the area, though his application was for annexation because he believed it would be helpful to Council and the public to be upfront. Engineering advised against having Baleine St cut through to Inverurie Rd to avoid cut through traffic. He had no plans to improve Baleine St now, but that did not mean it would never be improved. His responses to questions raised during public testimony were as follows: • Access was planned on the southern border of Tax Lot 3000 and not on the 15-ft easement at 15868 Kimball St, and plans were to bring the sewer through Tax Lot 3000 and not through 15868 Kimball St. Anything north of Tax Lots 3000 and 100 was strictly a path, though sewer would be brought through there. He anticipated it would remain a path in the future and he had no plans to disrupt the neighborhood use of foot traffic there. • The Code required management of storm water, and that was probably one of the most limiting factors to the development potential of the site. Initially, he had informally inquired of the Planning Director about annexing and developing the area with septic systems for a couple of the homes. The Planning Director seemed to believe that was reasonable, but Mr. Brockman understood he was not the decision-maker and when he applied for annexation, he was told staff would not recommend the annexation to Council unless sewer was brought to the property. In order for that to pencil out, more than two houses would need to be developed there. • He had paid $7,000 to an engineering firm to guarantee that the sewer system could gravity flow without a pump station, so no pump station would be involved. • On Tax Lot 100 toward Inverurie Rd an area existed that was a lake virtually all winter long, but it was not the entire area indicated for annexation. Mayor Buck noted for the public that the Council Report contained an attachment that explained annexation. Mr. Espe explained staff had not been given details on what could happen with the property in terms of partitioning or recognizing legal lots of record. Mr. Brockman indicated he wanted to reestablish the legal lots of record through Clackamas County which would not require public noticing. Once the property was annexed, a lot line adjustment could be done through the City which would have limited noticing and was also an administrative process. If re-platting was required, it would be necessary for him to go through the noticed land use process. The land use process that would be noticed first would be the delineation of the wetlands, followed by a noticed land use process for the construction of the sewer and the re-delineation of the existing RP lines. He confirmed the relationship between the lot lines and the RP designation was irrelevant; the lot lines would not dictate the location of the RP area. The public would have the opportunity to participate in the wetland delineation process and comment on the criteria as well as on a Type 2 tree removal. Councilor Mboup said he was very concerned about the issues raised in testimony. He asked if developing the property would have consequences in terms of engineering. The neighbors were worried about damage to their property resulting from development. He asked if from a scientific standpoint they could be told that the damage from flooding would not happen. Mr. Espe replied City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 November 2, 2021 that the applicant would determine through the future land use process whether a storm system would work so the adjacent properties would not be inundated. Additional related requirements would also have to be followed. Councilor Mboup referred to the testimony about the previous development flooding a home and asked if any guarantee could be offered to reassure the residents that would not happen again. Mr. Espe replied he did not believe that staff was equipped to make any such scientific guarantee for the adjacent properties until a land use application was before them for review. The burden of proof would be on the applicant to bear that out and determine whether or not their development would meet the City Code requirements regarding sensitive lands, storm water, providing the sewer, etc. Councilor Manz confirmed that this part of the process was only for annexation and any future development would go through a very rigorous process defined by Code. Ms. Espe further confirmed additional procedures would include land use review for the wetland delineation, partition requirements, and building permits for individual houses. Storm water would need to be managed on site and the storm water Codes followed. Councilor Wendland confirmed the three tax lots had already been determined and asked how often changes to an RP area were allowed once the RP designation was placed. It was difficult to imagine how five houses would be built in the area indicated in red on the diagram provided by Mr. Brockman. He asked why Tax Lot 100 would be connected to the sewer when it was not intended to be developed. Mr. Espe replied that the sensitive land designation shown on the map was a generalized location because the wetland scientists were not able to ground truth every lot when the overlays were established for the wetlands. The idea was that final delineation of the RP resource would take place in the future based on field surveys. Secondly, the sensitive lands designation allowed for modifications to dimensional standards, setbacks, and floor area of the underlying zone, and for variation in the lot dimension, lot size, and depth without a variance if the transfer of allowable density in the R-7.5 zone was not increased and did not have a greater negative impact on the natural resource. Other limitations in the Sensitive Lands Code also existed. If one lot was completely designated as an RP resource and occupied most or all of the lot in any residential district, the property owner was permitted development on the parcel of a single-family dwelling or the equivalent based on the minimum lot area of the underlying zone. If they owned only Tax Lot 100 and it was completely encumbered by the RP resource, the owner would be legally entitled to build one reasonably-sized house on the property based on the setbacks and requirements of the R-7.5 zone. Councilor Wendland inquired if a similar situation had occurred on Tara PI, and if the same could happen on Tax Lots 100 and 3000. The property owner could go through the same process to erase some of the blue area if they met the criteria. Mr. Espe agreed it was possible if the criteria were met and the property owner could establish that the location did not contain a wetland, but they could not fill or place fill in an RP resource. Councilor Nguyen thanked Mr. Brockman for providing additional insight on his future plans for the annexed property. He believed the question should be asked if the applicant would continue with the annexation if it was determined later that five houses could not be built on the three lots. He understood it was a chicken-and-egg scenario, but it would be good to know to save staff and the applicant time, and whether the project made financial sense. Ms. Bennett responded that it was not possible because the City did not review the idea of a development proposal, just the proposals themselves. The property owner had to do their own due diligence to determine the viability of the project. Councilor Nguyen noted the four manholes for the sewer and asked if City Council Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 November 2, 2021 another way existed to connect the sewer without impacting the natural areas. Erica Rooney, Public Works Director/City Engineer, replied that a master plan based off of high-level geography showed a slight rise to the west necessitating that the sewer flowed to the east. As part of the annexation package, the applicant looked into the feasibility of having the sewer flow by gravity because the area was so flat. Having the sewer flow to the west would require a pump. The City had placed sewers in parks before, most recently in Rivergrove Park, in the interest of keeping sewers in a gravity formation. In this application, they wanted to attempt to bore instead of using an open cut to lessen the impact to the natural area. Councilor Verdick asked for more detail on how the zoning was determined for the site in the past. The residents had mentioned during testimony the possibility of different zoning to preserve the neighborhood character. Ms. Bennett replied it was the result of the State Goal 10 Housing Rules where every community of a certain size had to achieve a certain housing density community-wide. Down-zoning in the subject neighborhood would require up-zoning someplace else. Councilor Verdick asked for further information about requiring sewer versus septic. Ms. Bennett replied that was also a statewide requirement prohibiting septic systems in a development in an urban area with urban services. A failed septic system within a certain number of feet of a sewer line would require a connection to a sewer and, under City policy, an annexation was required before a sewer connection could be made. Mayor Buck moved to tentatively approve Ordinance 2874 and direct staff to return with findings and an Ordinance for enactment upon the owner recording the Covenant to Construct and Connect to City Sewer Line in the official records of Clackamas County, Oregon. Councilor Rapf seconded the motion. Councilor Nguyen received confirmation that the approval would be tentative and the applicant could withdraw the application if he decided to do so. Councilor Wendland noted the city welcomed those who wished to annex in and did not force the issue. He would support the application under those circumstances with the understanding that a lot of work had to be done on Mr. Brockman's part. Councilor Rapf was in support of the application because he believed government should not get in the way of wealth-building or in making life better and that it was not Council's job to state whether or not the applicant could build on the site. If the property ultimately could not be built upon, the city would have a nice wetland that would not be developed. He believed many people tonight might have expected something more from the process than just a decision on annexation. He fully supported annexation and believed that City staff and others would make the right decision on developing the property when the time came. Councilor Mboup stated he would have voted against annexation of the property, but he had faith in staff and accepted their statements tonight. The property had a visible problem and he had reservations about it, but would vote in favor of the annexation. A roll call vote was held, and the motion was passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Mboup, Manz, Nguyen, Wendland, Verdick, and Rapf voting `aye', (7-0). City Council Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 November 2, 2021 Mayor Buck reiterated this decision was tentative and that staff would return to Council with findings on November 14tn Council took a break from 7:13 p.m. to 7:22 p.m. 5.2 Ordinance 2775, Vacating the Remaining Portion of a Public Alley located South of A Avenue between 3rd and 4th Streets. Jason Loos, City Attorney, read the parameters of the public hearing, then asked if any members of the Council had any ex parte contacts, including a site visit, any bias, or any financial conflicts of interest. None were heard. Ms. Rooney presented the Council Report for the vacation of a public alley, describing the location and applicable statues. She described the changes in the area that led to the development of the alley into a plaza, and other details leading up to the proposed ordinance. The City Recorder had received no public comments on the matter. She clarified that the plats were typically set up to each contain a side of the right-of-way so, when a vacation took place, the two sides returned to the original holders. Council had the option of a future lot line adjustment if desired. Mayor Buck opened the public hearing, confirmed there was no public testimony, and then closed the hearing. Councilor Manz moved to enact Ordinance 2775. Councilor Mboup seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion was passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Mboup, Manz, Nguyen, Wendland, Verdick, and Rapf voting `aye', (7-0). 5.3 Resolution 21-36, Adjusting the Budget for the Biennium Commencing July 1, 2021 by Adopting a Supplemental Budget, Approving Resources/Requirements, and Making Appropriations. Resolution 21-37, Authorizing the Prepayment of Certain Full Faith and Credit Obligations Previously Issued. Sean Cross, Finance Director, presented the Council Report, noting the City had sold some bonds in 2011 that were now callable. Usually, the City would consider refunding them for a lower interest rate, but staff realized the fund balance was sufficient to pay off the bonds. By doing so, the City would save about $1.6 million in interest payments. He clarified that because the maximum indebtedness had been reached, TIF (tax increment financing)funds could not be used toward projects anymore, and the money needed to go to repaying the debt. Mayor Buck opened the public hearing, confirmed there was no public testimony, and closed the hearing. Councilor Mboup moved to adopt Resolution 21-36 and Resolution 21-37. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 November 2, 2021 A voice vote was held, and the motion was passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Mboup, Manz, Nguyen, Wendland, Verdick, and Rapf voting `aye', (7-0). 6. STUDY SESSIONS 6.1 Certification Office for Business Inclusion and Diversity (COBID) Update Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, spoke to the development of rules regarding equity in public contracting. Council's goal was to foster diversity, equity and inclusion by reaching out to businesses that met the Certification Office of Business Inclusion and Diversity (COBID) certification which focused on emerging small businesses, minority and women-owned businesses, businesses by service-disabled veterans, and disadvantaged business enterprises. He updated on some of the questions posed to Council on August 3rd as follows: • How many COBID-certified businesses should staff contact when doing a solicitation? Staff had no strong feeling either way. • Should staff advertise in the OregonBuys E-procurement Program? Doing so would not further Council's goal in reaching out to COBID firms because the OregonBuys program applied to everyone. • Should the City be adopting a specific percentage of COBID firms as an aspirational goal for contracting? If so, which contracts do they apply to? Staff recommended not setting this goal until the tools were in place to determine the percentage. • Should good faith efforts apply only to construction contracts or to others as well?Architectural engineering and public improvements could also be considered. Mr. Boone said staff had also identified internal tracking challenges they would work to address with the new Equity Program Manager, Guilian Del Rio, who would also work with City departments on reporting to be presented to Council. He noted a section was inadvertently omitted from the Council Report regarding the evaluation criteria for when bids were sought for goods and services and for personal services where not less than 10 percent of the points for evaluating a bid was based on one or more of the following criteria: The business is certified through COBID; the public contracting officer could elect to use an effective plan for identifying and using COBID-certified subcontractors; or, the business had demonstrated a previous history in reaching out to COBID firms. He then provided the following answers to clarifying questions from Council: • The OregonBuys program was a statewide system that resulted in a broader bid solicitation but did not have any COBID-type leaning. Some of the other cities that have moved toward the COBID process did not use OregonBuys. • The Good Faith Effort(GFE) program was required by contractors in the construction industry to determine whether a firm was COBID or not and how those firms would be sought. The City did not yet have a separate GFE program yet, but would be developing one with the help of Ms. Del Rio. She would also make a recommendation to management on whether a computer- based tracking system would be necessary and how it would be implemented. Having the data be part of the Finance Department's online dashboard was a possibility that would be considered. • It was not likely that staff would reach out to the same COBID-qualified vendors repeatedly; the greater problem was getting enough responses from COBID firms due to more City Council Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 November 2, 2021 governments reaching out to those firms. If insufficient numbers of responses were seen, the net could be broadened. • The City had not previously stated it was necessary to reach out to any particular classification of business from a contracting point of view. The COBID database would help in that regard. Council's goal from January was to broaden the outreach to inclusive and diverse businesses. • A conference call was held about the COBID program with a number of Oregon cities including Tigard, Beaverton, Eugene, and Portland. Beaverton already had an equity program manager, and had provided a model to emulate. • The City would participate in outreach activities to encourage eligible businesses to obtain COBID certification. COBID firms would be notified of contract opportunities and events such as trade shows. The Equity Program Manager would assist with those activities. Beaverton, Tigard, and other cities already had an event they did in common, so Lake Oswego could join with them on the advertising. • Cooperative agreements did not need to be advertised by the City on the theory that they were nationally or regionally advertised. The City could buy off of agreements, but would also have to solicit a bid from two COBID certified businesses. Council directed staff to proceed with a public hearing in December on amending the public contracting rules to require staff to review the COBID database for at least two COBID-certified firms to contact. 6.2 Commercial Temporary Shelters (COVID) — LU 21-0068 Scot Siegel, Community Development Director, presented the Council Report regarding the use of temporary shelters for commercial uses, particularly for restaurants. Earlier this year, the City Council amended the Community Development Code (CDC) to allow temporary shelters or tents for more than 14 days consistent with its goal to support business expansion and primarily to provide relief during the pandemic by allowing greater social distancing. The ordinance was in addition to Code that already allowed seasonal enclosures that restaurants could use on a recurring basis during the fall and winter months. Those enclosures required a higher level of design and went through design review. • Staff sought Council's direction on whether to extend the allowance for the shelters this fall and winter, and had issued an anticipatory public notice for a prospective Planning Commission hearing on November 81h. Staff would return to Council on November 16' for a public hearing and consideration of an ordinance. The language of the ordinance would change from referencing physical distancing requirements to referencing any emergency or state regulation relating to COVID. Key points of Council's discussion touched on the possibility that some of the small number of restaurants using temporary shelters were not ready to open at full capacity due to the ongoing pandemic; impacts of vaccinations on restaurant staff and patrons; the future usefulness of such structures; the assistance shelters might provide to restaurants financially; and how temporary outdoor structures might provide a sense of normalcy during the pandemic. Mr. Siegel confirmed Council wanted staff to move forward with the temporary shelter extension process. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 November 2, 2021 6.3 Council Goals Update— 3rd Quarter Martha Bennett, City Manager, provided a brief update on the progress on Council goals, noting the topic was covered in more detail in the Council Report. Council was making steady progress on 16 of the 18 initiatives set for eight overall goals, and the remaining two initiatives were scheduled for Council action. She highlighted the progress made on the community dialog on policing and on major capital projects. 7. CONSENT AGENDA— FULL COUNCIL 7.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes September 14, 2021, Draft Special Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes September 28, 2021, Draft Special Meeting Minutes Councilor Wendland moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Verdick seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion was passed. with Mayor Buck and Councilors Mboup, Manz, Nguyen, Wendland, Verdick, and Rapf voting `aye', (7-0). 8. CONSENT AGENDA— COUNCILORS ONLY 8.1 Resolution 21-39, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego Approving the Appointment of an Alternate to the 50+ Advisory Board. Mayor Buck thanked outgoing board member Janine Hawthorne and incoming member Susan Bailey. Councilor Wendland moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Mboup seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion was passed,with Councilors Mboup, Manz, Nguyen, Wendland, Verdick, and Rapf voting `aye', (6-0). 9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor Manz reported the house had been removed from Hallinan Woods and the work was anticipated to be finished by the end of the week, weather provided. Councilor Wendland reported on the Lake Oswego Recreation and Aquatic Center (LORAC). Another design review meeting had been held and the plans could be seen on the Parks and Recreation page on the City's website. The operating agreement was being worked on with the School District. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 November 2, 2021 Council Verdick reported she had talked this morning with Amanda Watson, Sustainability Program Manager, and learned the City had met its solar goal. Mayor Buck noted that for Native American Heritage Month, the City was hosting a traveling exhibit called Oregon Is Indian Country in part at the City Hall and at the Public Library starting mid-month and going through the early part of December. He reported a presentation was given at the Metro Policy Advisory Committee meeting on the garbage system and the increased tip fee's impact on providers. Councilor Manz reported that Lake Oswego Reads chose How Much of These Hills Is Gold for 2022. The book was a story about the children of Chinese Immigrants. 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS No reports of officers were given. 11. ADJOURNMENT, CITY COUNCIL Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council at 8:21 p.m. to call to order the Redevelopment Agency. The LORA board met from 8:21 p.m. to 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 14iLef Kari Linde , City Recorder Approved by the City Council on December 7, 2021 Joseph M. Buck, Mayor City Council Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 November 2, 2021