Loading...
Agenda Item - 2022-01-04 - Number 9.1 - Ordinance 2878, Adopting Findings, Conclusions and Order for LU 21-0039 9.1 DAA � COUNCIL REPORT r o OREGO., Subject: Findings, Conclusions and Order for the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to include the City-owned Rassekh property within the City's Urban Services Boundary(USB). (LU 21-0039/ Ordinance 2878) Meeting Date:January 4, 2022 Staff Member: Paul Espe, Planner Report Date: December 28, 2021 Department: Planning and Building Services Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑ ❑ Public Hearing ❑X Denial (Planning Commission 11/8/21) ❑x Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑ Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction The Planning Commission 3:2 vote (1 Abstention) has O Consent Agenda recommended that the City Council deny LU 21-0039. Staff Recommendation:Adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order finalizing the City Council's tentative decision overturning the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny LU 21-0039. Recommended Language for Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2878 and adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order. Project/Issue Relates To: City Council goals and work plan Issue before Council: Whether to approve LU 21-0039/Ordinance 2878 amending the Comprehensive Plan to include 18011 Stafford Road in the Urban Services Boundary(USB). ElCouncil Goal: Invest in Lake Oswego's high-quality parks, natural areas, and recreational amenities. ISSUES BEFORE COUNCIL On December 7, 2021,the City Council held a quasi-judicial public hearing to tentatively approve the decision to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include 18011 Stafford Road into the Urban Services Boundary (USB). The Council directed staff to prepare a final ordinance and findings for adoption. The attached Findings, Conclusion, and Order finalize the City Council's tentative decision to approve this request. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.citv Page 2 The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and tentatively recommended denial of the application on November 8.The Commission adopted their Findings, Conclusion and Order (Exhibit B-1) on November 22, 2021.The City Council held a public hearing and tentatively approved the application on December 7, 2021.The Council received written testimony from the applicant(Exhibit E-2)the Palisades Neighborhood Chair(Exhibit G-202) and from Rick Cook (Exhibit G-203). Oral testimony was received from members of the Atherton Homeowners Association.The written testimony is summarized in the attached findings; Exhibit A, Attachment A. The City Council concluded that LU 21-0039 complies with all applicable criteria and should be approved. The Council also concluded that proposed Ordinance 2878,which implements LU 21-0039, should be enacted. RECOMMENDATION Enact Ordinance 2878 and Adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order finalizing the City Council's tentative decision overturning the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny LU 21-0039. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance 2878 with City Council Findings, Conclusions and Order, LU 21-0039 • Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order, LU 21-0039 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE 2878 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING THE LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 9.8 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 18011 STAFFORD ROAD WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS(LU 21-0039) WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 8, 2021 at which the staff report, public testimony and other evidence were received and considered; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that LU 21-0039 be denied by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Planning Commission recommendation was held by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on December 7, 2021, at which the staff report, public testimony and the record of the proceedings before the Planning Commission were received and considered; WHEREAS,the Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to include the property within the Lake Oswego Urban Services Boundary is consistent with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, Metro Code requirements and Statewide Planning Goals, and Administrative Rules; and, The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 21-0039) attached as Attachment A. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended to include the property located at 18011 Stafford Road (21E16D01100) shown on Attachment B within the Lake Oswego Urban Services Boundary. Section 3: Effective Date: As provided in Section 35.C. of the Lake Oswego Charter,this ordinance shall take effect on the 30th day following enactment. Enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 4th day of January, 2022. Ordinance 2878 PAGE 1 OF 2 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Joseph M Buck, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Kari Linder, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jason Loos, City Attorney Ordinance 2878 PAGE 2 OF 2 ATTACHMENT A 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO LU 21-0039 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 INCLUDE 18011 STAFFORD ROAD INTO PARKS AND RECREATION THE URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY; DEPARTMENT 5 (ORDINANCE 2878) FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 6 7 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS 8 This is an application to amend the Urban Services Boundary to bring 18011 9 Stafford Road into the Urban Services Boundary. The property is already within the 10 Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary and City of Lake Oswego City Limits. 11 12 HEARINGS 13 The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and tentatively 14 recommended denial of the application on November 8. The Commission adopted their 15 Findings, Conclusion and Order (Exhibit B-1) on November 22. The City Council held a 16 public hearing and tentatively approved the application on December 7, 2021. The 17 Council received the following written testimony and exhibits: 18 19 E - Exhibits: Applicant's Presentation 20 Exhibit E-2 Applicant's Presentation - Makenzie 12/7/21 21 G - Exhibits: Public Comments 22 G-202 Letter from Al Calabria PNA Chair 12/7/21 23 G-203 Letter from Rick Cook 12/7/21 24 25 26 Page 1— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039 / ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 2 A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code 3 LOC 50.07.003.1.b Burden of Proof 4 LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeals 5 LOC 50.07.003.3 Notice of Public Hearing 6 LOC 50.07.003.4 Hearings before a Hearings Body 7 LOC 50.07.003.15.a Major Development (development that requires a 8 quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan and/or zoning map amendment) 9 LOC 50.07.003.15.d.ii Criteria for Legislative Decisions 10 LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD 11 LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation Required 12 LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 13 B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 14 Land Use Planning Section B — Development Review 15 Policy B-2 16 Policy B-3 17 Land Use Planning Section D — Land Use Administration 18 Policy D-1 19 Policy D-5 20 Community Culture — Civic Engagement 21 Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 22 Recreation — Goals 1 & 2 23 Policy 2 24 Policy 6 25 26 Page 2— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039/ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) Urbanization 1 Policy A-1 2 Policy A-3 3 Policy C-3 4 5 C. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (reviewed; not applicable) 6 Metro Code 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes 7 3.09.010 - Purpose and Applicability 3.09.020 — Definitions 8 D. Statewide Planning Goals 9 10 Goal 1 Citizen Involvement Goal 2: Land Use Planning 11 Goal 8: Recreational Needs 12 Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services 13 Goal 14: Urbanization 14 E. Transportation Planning Rule (Chapter 660, Division 12) 15 OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2), Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendment 16 17 FINDINGS AND REASONS 18 As findings supporting its decision, the City Council incorporates the Planning 19 Commission Staff Report dated October 28, 2021 (with all exhibits attached thereto), and 20 Planning Commission Finding No. 5, relating to Healthy Ecosystems, of the Planning 21 Commission's Findings, Conclusion and Order, dated November 22, 2021. 22 Following are the supplemental findings and conclusions of the City Council that 23 support the decision: 24 25 26 Page 3— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039/ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 1. Land Use Planning; Section B - Development Review Policies B-2 and B-3: 2 Policy B-2 requires use of the city code to require new development to be 3 adequately served by public facilities and services. Policy B-3 requires the use of the 4 public facility planning process to ensure that development in the community doesn't 5 exceed the capacity of the planned public facilities. 6 Sanitary Sewer. The Council received testimony that the subject site cannot be 7 adequately served with sanitary sewer services. 8 The Council notes that the Planning Commission implicitly found that water and 9 sewer service could be extended to the site by the Commission's finding that the USB 10 amendment "would enable sewer and water service for future park improvements," 11 (Exhibit B-1, pg. 3, line 24). See also Exhibit B-1, pg. 3, line 32; pg. 4, line 35; pg. 5, 12 lines 13 and 49; and pg. 6, line 6, 13 The Council finds the site can be served by a sanitary sewer main abutting the 14 western boundary of the property, consistent with Policies B-2 and B-3, as the existing 15 sewer pump station and Zone of Benefit were created in part to accommodate future 16 development on the subject site, as confirmed by the City Engineer (Exhibit D-1, pages 3 17 and 17) and Exhibit C-1 page 2 of 6 first paragraph - Draft PC Minutes 11/24/21. 18 Access via Atherton Drive. The Council received testimony stating that access to 19 the future park facility from Atherton Drive would be unsafe and would interfere with the 20 periodic maintenance of the Northwest Natural Gas pipeline and terminal, the ingress 21 and egress of emergency vehicles and landscaping services. 22 The Council finds that the application for an amendment to the USB does not 23 include park development, and when an application for development is submitted, LOC 24 50.07.003.1.a.iii containing criteria for traffic impact studies will apply. LOC 25 50.06.003.1.c.iii's prohibition of direct access on an arterial (such as Stafford Rd.) 26 applies when an alternative access is "available." The suitability of Atherton Drive to Page 4— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039 / ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 serve as an available access to the site for some level of park development will be 2 determined in the development review process. The Council finds that LOC 3 50.07.003.a.iii together with the conditioning authority of LOC 50.07.003.5 allows City to 4 require transportation improvements to mitigate the impacts of such development, 5 consistent with Policy B-2. 6 Traffic Impact on Stafford Road. The Council received testimony that a Traffic 7 Impact Analysis for a possible future park design underestimates the traffic impacts to 8 Stafford Road from the possible park design and shows that the existing traffic flows at 9 the Stafford Road roundabout are at a level below acceptable standards (LOS F). (The 10 traffic study referenced in Exhibit G-002, pg. 1, is not in the record.) The testimony 11 contends that the City has not planned for needed future traffic system improvements as 12 required by Policy B-3 and that no such improvements are included in the City's or 13 Clackamas County's Capital Improvement Plan. The testimony also contends that capital 14 funds are not available to make necessary improvements to accommodate additional 15 traffic generated from future park improvements. 16 The Council notes that the Planning Commission's denial recommendation was 17 partially based on an eventual development's transportation impacts to Stafford Road. 18 See Exhibit B-1, pgs. 22-36. 19 With respect to Policy B-3, the Council finds that a 2007 Intergovernmental 20 Agreement (IGA) between the City and Clackamas County delegated responsibility for a 21 portion of the Stafford/Rosemont roundabout to the City while retaining Clackamas 22 County jurisdiction for land use permitting at the intersection. Over the past 14 years, the 23 City has maintained the intersection and will continue to do so into the future, according 24 to the City Engineer. The current proposal to adjust the USB on the Rassekh property 25 does not affect traffic at the roundabout or anywhere along the Stafford Road corridor 26 and therefore does not affect the operation of the roundabout. Page 5— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039 / ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 The Council finds this boundary adjustment is akin to an administrative 2 housekeeping action to complete the process of bringing the subject property back into 3 the USB after being omitted during annexation of the property in 2006. The USB 4 amendment is necessary because the Comprehensive Plan and City code require that 5 future development be connected to City sewer; by adding the property to the USB the 6 City will have authority to serve the property with sewer, water, and any street frontage 7 improvements required for development per LOC 50.06.008 and 50.07.003.5, consistent 8 with Policies B-2 and B-3. 9 If the roundabout is at LOS F (as noted, the traffic study referenced in Exhibit G- 10 002 to that effect is not in the record), the Council notes that typically such references 11 are to the PM Peak, rather than at all times. Thus, some level of park development 12 served by sewer and water facilities may be feasible without impacting the transportation 13 system. Again, that would be ascertained and addressed as part of the development 14 application. See LOC 50.07.003.1.a.iii and 50.07.003.5.a.iii. 15 The other park design issues raised in the public testimony, including concerns 16 about future park development accessing Atherton Drive, traffic impacts on Stafford 17 Road, development impacts to natural areas, and overall park design are immaterial to 18 the proposed USB amendment application; these issues would be addressed at the time 19 of development review upon submittal of a development application for this and other 20 properties in the area. See, for example, LOC 50.06.003.1.c.iii, 50.07.003.5.a.iii, 21 50.05.010, 50.03.003.5.d, 50.05.008.3. 22 The Council also takes official administrative notice of the Lake Oswego 23 Transportation System Plan (TSP, 2009; and updated TSP, 2016), which the Council 24 finds sufficient for purposes of evaluating the transportation system relative to the USB 25 amendment under the current Policy B-3. The TSP identifies multiple intersection and 26 roadway projects for the Stafford Road corridor ranging from intersection signals to bike Page 6— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039 / ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 lane, pedestrian facilities and turn lanes. With increased interest in the congestion and 2 accessibility of the corridor, the City would first undertake a corridor analysis that 3 considers all of the proposed projects from the TSP and analyzes appropriate solutions 4 to address congestion, including multi-model improvements and improved pedestrian 5 roadway crossings. The Council would then prioritize funding for these options in its 6 Capital Improvement Program, consistent with Policy B-3. 7 2. Land Use Planning Section D - Land Use Administration Policy D-1 8 This Policy requires the coordination of the development and amendment of City 9 plans and actions related to land use with other affected agencies, including county, 10 state, Metro, federal agencies, and special districts. 11 The Council received testimony from the Atherton Heights Homeowners' 12 Association (Atherton HOA) and the Palisades Neighborhood Association that the City 13 Parks Department has not been responsive to survey results and multiple neighborhood 14 meetings that were conducted regarding possible park design. As stated under Section 4 15 Recreation, below, participants in the public hearing stated that the preliminary park 16 design should incorporate more picnic shelters, play areas and pickleball courts. 17 Members of the Atherton HOA and the Palisades Neighborhood Association expressed 18 concerns regarding lighting trespass to adjacent properties, access from Atherton Road 19 and requested to relocate the skate park contained in a possible development proposal 20 to Hazelia Field. 21 The Planning Commission interpreted neighborhood associations to be "an 22 affected agency" for purposes of Policy D-1. Exhibit B-1, pg. 4, line 7 and fn. 1. 23 The method of analysis of the Comprehensive Plan is the same as for statutes 24 and code: text, context, legislative history or rules of construction. (PGE v. Bureau of 25 Labor and Industries, 317 or 606, 610-12, 859 P2d 1143 (1993); State of Oregon v. 26 Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009). Page 7— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039/ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 • Text: "Affected agencies" is not a defined phrase in the Comprehensive Plan. 2 • Context: The Council takes administrative notice of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive 3 Plan and notes numerous express references to "neighborhood associations." See, 4 for example, pgs. 1, 8, 9, 41, 42. The Community Culture chapter, Policy 3, 5 expressly includes neighborhood associations in considering citizen input in land use 6 issues, indicating that if it were intended to include neighborhood associations in the 7 list of "affected agencies," that could have been done expressly. 8 • Rules of Construction: The interpretive principles of ejusdem generis ("a nonspecific 9 or general phrase that appears at the end of a list of items in a statute * ** to be read 10 as referring only to other items of the same kind" as the items in the list) and noscitur ii a sociis ("the meaning of words in a statute may be clarified or confirmed by 12 reference to other words in the same sentence or provision)"may be used in applying 13 rules of construction. Gordon v. Rosenblum, 361 Or. 352, 364, 393 P.3d 1122 14 (2017). 15 A neighborhood association is not similar to the other listed "affected agencies" of 16 "county, state, Metro, federal agencies, and special districts." All of those other 17 agencies listed are governmental entities that have some role in planning and 18 enacting binding plans, law, and regulations that affect current and proposed land 19 uses and city land use planning and regulations. 20 • Lastly, in the land use context, "coordination" arises from LCDC Goal 2, which 21 requires that each comprehensive plan be coordinated with the plans of affected 22 governmental units. The obligation for "coordination" means more than notification. 23 Based on the above rules of interpretation, and the Council's authority to interpret 24 its own enactment (Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or. 247, 250, 243 P.3d 776, 777 25 (2010), the Council finds that "affected agencies" does not include neighborhood 26 associations. Accordingly, Policy D-1 is not applicable in this USB Amendment, Page 8— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039/ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 regarding the neighborhood association testimony regarding a City Parks Department 2 survey and the Parks Dept.'s consideration of its input about any future park 3 development on the site. 4 The Council finds that that this property has been planned for park use since 5 2005-2006 when it was added to the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary, 6 annexed into the City, and the City's Comprehensive Plan and Public Facility Plan have 7 made appropriate provisions to accommodate the property's future development as a 8 park. The Council finds that public review and coordination required by Policy D-1 with 9 Clackamas County and with listed agencies for any public service improvements 10 associated with the USB amendment have been met. 11 3. Community Culture - Civic Engagement Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 12 These Policies require the City to provide citizen involvement opportunities that 13 are appropriate to the scale of a given planning effort and provide opportunities to 14 participate in the planning process, ensure that information is readily accessible and 15 easy to understand, to use community groups, boards and commissions to ensure a 16 diverse representation of land use issues. 17 The Council received testimony from the Palisades Neighborhood Association 18 expressing concern about the City Parks Dept.'s presentation and the public process 19 provided for a proposed park development at preliminary neighborhood meetings. The 20 testimony also expressed concerns regarding elements of park design. 21 The Council finds that the noticing requirements for the USB amendment (LOC 22 50.07.003.15) are met and that no other public involvement is warranted for the USB 23 Amendment application due to the fact that the boundary adjustment is akin to an 24 administrative housekeeping action to complete the process of bringing the subject 25 property back into the USB after being omitted during annexation of the property in 2005. 26 Page 9— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039 / ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503 635.0225/503 699 7453(F) 1 The USB Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan is necessary if any future 2 development on the site is to be connected to City services. The Community Culture / 3 Civic Engagement Policies for the proposed USB amendment have been met. (The 4 Palisades Neighborhood Association, the Atherton Homeowners' Association and the 5 surrounding neighborhood will have an opportunity to provide input regarding specific 6 aspects of the park development when a development review application for 7 development of the park is submitted. (See LOC 50.07.003.3.a, c.) 8 4. Community Culture / Recreation - Policies 2 and 6 9 These policies state that the City, "subject to financial constraints, [is to] fill service 10 gaps in essential recreation services, as identified by the Parks Plan, through 11 development of new facilities at existing sites, through partnerships, or at new sites if 12 necessary" and to "address the land use, public facility and transportation impacts of 13 park and open space land acquisition and development through coordination with 14 affected neighborhoods, state, federal and regional agencies, and other jurisdictions." 15 Based upon testimony in the record about the number of athletic fields within 1/4 16 mile of the site, the Planning Commission found that the City Parks Department had 17 prioritized active recreation facilities, e.g., ballfields, over passive recreation facilities in 18 future park design, and therefore a future park improvement plan for active recreation 19 facilities on the site would not result in park facilities serving all segments of Lake 20 Oswego's population. The Commission found these policies were not met. (Exhibit B-1, 21 pg. 5, lines 15-22). 22 The Council does not interpret these policies to be exclusively applied at the 23 neighborhood level, as the Commission applied them. The Council finds that the park 24 planning process must also consider city-wide recreational needs. Further, the Council 25 finds that the site-specific USB Amendment involving the determination of whether urban 26 services can be provided to a site is not the time for balancing city-wide park needs. Page 10— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039 / ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503 635.0225/503 699 7453(F) 1 The Council finds that the proposed USB Amendment is consistent with Policy 2 2 by adding land to the USB so that it can later fill service gaps in essential recreation 3 services, as identified by the Parks Plan, through development of new facilities. The USB 4 Amendment will allow services to be available to the property for development of park 5 services. The proposed USB Amendment is consistent with Policy 2 by facilitating the 6 future development of planned park facilities. 7 The Council finds that the USB Amendment is consistent with Policy 6 by 8 ensuring that any expansion of public facilities comply with the Utilities development 9 standards (LOC 50.06.008), Transportation Impact Study requirements (LOC 10 50.07.003.1.a.iii), mitigation requirements on public facilities and services (LOC 11 50.07.003.5.a.iii), and mitigation on the built environment requirement (LOC 12 50.07.003.5.a.iv), so that development will not adversely affect existing public facilities or 13 cause any significant impacts to the local transportation system. 14 The Council finds, as demonstrated through previous land use decisions 15 mentioned under Section 2, "Land Use Planning; Section B - Development Review 16 Policies 8-2 and 8-3," above, the public facility and transportation impacts of 17 development of the property for park purposes on nearby neighborhoods and 18 governmental jurisdictions will be addressed through compliance with the applicable 19 development standards (LOC Art. 50.06) and LOC 50.07.003.5 during development 20 review of the future design of the park facilities proposed for this property. The proposed 21 application is consistent with Policy 6. 22 5. Healthy Ecosystems, Background, Policies 2 and 7 23 Policy 2 states that the City is to "Maintain Resource Protection (RP) district 24 regulations for the protection of significant streams and wetlands, and their adjacent 25 vegetated corridors, consistent with Goal 5, Metro Title 3, and Clean Water Act 26 requirements. Policy 7 states "Provide development standards that require the following Page 11— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039/ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 habitat-friendly development practices where RP districts, or RC or HBA protection 2 areas, are established (list of practices omitted). 3 The Council received written testimony that the City is to maintain Resource 4 Protection (RP) district regulations for the protection of significant streams and wetlands 5 and their adjacent vegetated corridors, consistent with Goal 5, Metro Title 3 and Clean 6 Water Act requirements. The testimony also cites the need under Policy 7, to provide 7 development standards that require habitat-friendly development practices where RP 8 districts, RC or HBA protection areas are established. The Planning Commission 9 received similar testimony expressing concerns regarding potential impacts to the 10 tributary of Pecan Creek from any future park development. 11 The Planning Commission concluded that the resource is identified and 12 delineated as a Sensitive Lands Overlay District in the Sensitive Lands Map, as shown 13 on the Aerial Photograph Figure 1.2 of Exhibit D-1. The Council adopts the Planning 14 Commission's findings on this matter. (Exhibit B-1, pg. 5, lines 24-50). The Council finds 15 Policies 2 and 7 are met. 16 6. Urbanization / Annexation Policies - Policy C-3 17 Policy C-3 "[e]nsure[s] that ... expansion of Lake Oswego's Urban Services 18 Boundary does not detract from the City's ability to provide services to existing City 19 residents." 20 The Council received testimony that there is not enough information in the record 21 to determine if any park improvements resulting from extending water and sewer service 22 to the site would detract from the City's ability to provide services to existing City 23 residents. 24 The Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit D-1, pg. 13), incorporated the 25 Findings from the earlier inclusion of the site into the USB, and stated that "the 26 Comprehensive Plan and the Public Facilities Plan have nevertheless continued to make Page 12— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039/ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 appropriate provisions to accommodate the sites future development as a park," and that 2 "[t]he development review application for the site will ... require development to be 3 commensurate with the level of available public services and facilities, through LOC 4 50.06.008 and LOC 50.07.003.5.a.iii." 5 The Planning Commission found that this policy was not met because, as it found, 6 the evidence was insufficient to show that the earlier decision was, in fact, correct, and if 7 correct, that the ability to provide public services had not degraded since the earlier 8 decision. (Exhibit B-1, pg. 6, lines 16-18.) 9 The Council finds that the predecessor of Policy C-3 was found to have been met 10 in 2005 when the site was brought into the USB. (It was removed in Oct. 2006 as part of 11 USB land exchange to bring Hazelia Field into the USB.) 12 The Council finds, as noted in Section 1, above, upon a proposal for development 13 on the site, City code requires new development to provide utilities to the site (LOC 14 50.06.008, 50.07.003.5), and that negative impacts to the transportation system are to 15 be mitigated to the degree of impact by development. Accordingly, the Council finds that 16 upon park development that complies with the applicable criteria of the Community 17 Development Code, park development on the site will not degrade services to other City 18 residents. 19 7. Transportation Planning Rule - OAR 660-012-0060 20 This Rule provides that if an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged 21 comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would 22 significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility ["physical facility that 23 moves or assist in the movement of people or goods including facilities identified in OAR 24 660-012-0020" (OAR 660-012-0005)], then the local government must put in place 25 measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under 26 section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. Page 13 — FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039 / ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503 635.0225/503 699 7453(F) 1 Based on the rationale and findings stated under Section 2 (Land Use Planning) 2 above, the Council finds that the record provides sufficient evidence OAR 660-012-0060 3 has been met. 4 8. National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 5 The Council received written testimony (Exhibit G-203) that a Cultural Resource 6 Assessment has not been completed, that the area along Pecan Creek' in the western 7 portion of the site is considered to have a high probability area for buried archeological 8 resources, that shovel testing in this area is recommended, and that the current historic 9 resource assessment of the site does not comply with Section 106 of the National 10 Historic Preservation Act. (Section 106 requires that each federal agency identify and 11 assess the effects its actions may have on historic properties (eligible for or listed in the 12 National Register of Historic Places). Under Section 106, each federal agency must 13 consider public views and concerns about historic preservation issues when making final 14 project decisions.) 15 The Council finds that this was not an issue raised before the Planning 16 Commission and the Council's review (and any subsequent appeal review) is limited to 17 issues raised with specificity before the Planning Commission. LOC 50.07.003.7.h.i. 18 Therefore this issue was not preserved for review. 19 Even if the issue was raised below, the Council finds that Section 106 of the 20 National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to provide an opportunity to 21 comment on development on historic properties.2 Section 106 is not applicable as a 22 23 24 ' Actually, Atherton Creek, a tributary of Pecan Creek. 25 2 https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/historic-preservation/historic-preservation-policy-tools/leeislation-policy-and- reports/section-106-national-historic-preservation-act-of-1966:https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/2018- 26 06/nhpa.pdf Page 14— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039/ ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 criterion for this USB Amendment because: 2 (1) Section 106 is applicable to federal agencies -- the City is not a federal 3 agency; 4 (2) Section 106 is not applicable to the USB Amendment because it is not itself 5 "development" of the site; 6 (3) At present, the site is neither listed in the National Register of Historic Places 7 nor is there evidence from a cultural resource assessment that the site is eligible 8 for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; and 9 (4) Upon development, archaeological resources are to be protected and 10 preserved pursuant to the requirements of federal, state and local regulations, 11 including the guidelines administered by the Oregon State Historic Preservation 12 Office and ORS 358.905 through 358.962. Section 106, if applicable, is applied at 13 the time of development of the site. 14 9. Statewide Planning Goals 15 Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement: Statewide Planning Goal 1's 16 purpose is "[t]o develop a citizen-involvement program that insures the opportunity for 17 citizens to be involved in all phases of the [land use] planning process." See also ORS 18 197.160(1). The Goal requires the governing body of each city and county to develop a 19 citizen-involvement program, concerning the notification and inclusion of the general 20 public in the land use planning process. 21 Testimony was received that conceded, and the Planning Commission found that 22 the notification requirements in LOC 50.07.003.15 / LOC 50.07.003.3.c were followed. 23 However, the testimony was that additional outreach about any proposed eventual 24 development on the site was inadequate and/or should have occurred with the 25 neighborhood associations, and the Commission found that this policy was not met for 26 that reason. (Exhibit B-1, pg. 6, lines 32-44). Page 15— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039/ ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 The Council finds that the implementing land use regulations provide notification 2 requirements and the opportunity for public involvement through a public hearing in 3 considering amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, specifically LOC 4 50.07.003.16, .15, and LOC 50.07.003.3.c. The code notification requirements are part 5 of the Community Development Code, which is an acknowledged land use regulation 6 that implements the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. The USB Amendment does 7 not amend the any code provisions relating to citizen involvement in the phases of the 8 land use amendment. Therefore, the Council finds that the notification and the 9 opportunity for public involvement through the public hearing process followed for this 10 USB amendment, by compliance with the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and 11 Community Development Code, complies with Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. 12 Statewide Planning Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: The purpose of Statewide 13 Planning Goal 8 is to "satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and 14 visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational 15 facilities including destination resorts." 16 Based upon testimony received, the Commission found that this Goal was not met 17 because the neighborhood perceived and the Commission found that the City Parks 18 Dept. prioritized active recreation over passive recreation. (Exhibit B-1, pg. 7, lines 1-3; 19 pg. 5, lines 15-22). 20 The Council finds the subject site is zoned for recreational use (PNA zone): the 21 permissible use of the property is park / natural areas. The USB Amendment, to allow 22 water and sewer services to the site, does not alter that the permissible use will be a 23 park / natural area, as opposed to a non-recreation use. Goal 8 requires planning for the 24 recreational needs of the citizens of Lake Oswego. As discussed in Section 2 25 Community Culture / Recreation - Policy 2, above, the Council finds that the USB 26 Amendment does not alter the ability of the City Parks Dept. to plan for the recreational Page 16— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039 / ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 needs of the citizens of Lake Oswego, consistent with the Parks Plan and the applicable 2 policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, to the degree a USB Amendment is 3 applicable to recreation planning, the Council finds that Goal 8 - Recreational Needs 4 continues to be met. 5 Statewide Planning Goal 11 - Public Facilities: Statewide Planning Goal 11 6 requires jurisdictions "[t]o plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of 7 public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." 8 Goal 11's primary objective is to guide and support urban and rural development with 9 public facilities and services appropriate for, but limited to, the needs and requirements 10 of the area to be served. 11 If approved, this USB Amendment would make the property again eligible to 12 receive urban level of public services, e.g., water and sewer service, as appropriate for 13 the level of development, pursuant to LOC 50.06.008 and LOC 50.07.003.5. 14 The Planning Commission found that this Goal was not met because "it was not 15 demonstrated that adequate public facilities would be provided for those future park 16 improvements." (Exhibit B-1, pg. 7, lines 21-22.) 17 The Council finds that the issue for a USB Amendment is whether public services 18 can be made available to the site, consistent with the degree of permitted development. 19 The site is zoned PNA and this USB Amendment does not alter that. City code requires 20 new development to provide utilities to the site to the level of its development and 21 mitigation of impact on public facilities. Goal 8's requirement for "a timely, orderly and 22 efficient arrangement of public facilities and services" is achieved through a 23 development's compliance with LOC 50.06.008, 50.07.003.1.a.iii and 50.07.003.5.a.iii. 24 Future park development is not reviewed as a part of the USB Amendment. The 25 Council finds that issues related to site design would be addressed in greater detail as a 26 part of the development application before the Development Review Commission. Page 17 — FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039 / ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 The Council finds that Goal 11 - Public Facilities, has been met. 2 Statewide Planning Goal 14 — Urbanization: The purpose of this goal is to provide 3 for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban 4 population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient 5 use of land, and to provide for livable communities. 6 The Planning Commission found that this Goal was not met because it also found 7 that Goals 1, 8, and 11 were not met. 8 The Council finds that Goals 1, 8, and 11 are met. The Council finds that the site 9 is presently located with the Regional UGB and within city limits. For the reasons 10 discussed above, the Council finds that this USB Amendment would, as it did before in 11 2005, provide for the orderly and efficient manner of providing public services. 12 Therefore, the Council finds that this USB Amendment complies with Goal 14. 13 CONCLUSION 14 The City Council concludes that LU 21-0039 complies with all applicable criteria 15 and should be approved. The Council also concludes that proposed Ordinance 2878, 16 which implements LU 21-0039, should be enacted. 17 18 AYES: 19 NOES: 20 ABSENT: 21 ABSTAIN: 22 EXCUSED: 23 24 25 26 Page 18— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039/ ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 DATED this day of January, 2022. 2 3 Joseph M. Buck, Mayor 4 5 6 ATTEST: 7 Kari Linder, City Recorder 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 19— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 21-0039/ ORDINANCE 2878 ) JASON LOOS LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) :C'sb "I nil Urban Services Boundary Annexation 17901 LU 21-0039/Ordinance 2878 a ) m CO 17850 71 ti h� P F 17979 P NA 1i R-15 I -i 7970 mi. min min 1 c13 6 .E 17986 '985 U 17994 Ridge LPointe Dr 03 8110 co 18202 TRACT co A L 18132 18224 a N N 18154 ca 18246 w 1I e 5 'm Siena . Dr M M • co coc— ,) 1:ovi a a% 0` / er R-15 Co <oc s P).? 0 RosemO t n R a 0 p 18451 pl �, TRAC Lo � Attachment B %°' YTax Lot ID: 21E16D01100li °' City of Lake Oswego: *ijj 'v4t111 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN = PNA, Public �� A __. — ZONING = PNA, Public Proposed Current N ili $111 a USB USB b� 4 _ _ � � Lake Oswego j/ Subject .. E L-_, City Limits i Property N -18691 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet 10/28/2021 ATTACHMENT 2 APPROVED 11/22/2021 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT ) LU 21-0039-2020 5 TO INCLUDE 18011 STAFFORD ROAD ) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 6 INTO THE URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY ) PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 7 ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 8 9 NATURE OF APPLICATION 10 11 The City of Lake Oswego (Parks and Recreation Department) application requests amending the 12 Comprehensive Plan Map to include this property within the City's Urban Services Boundary 13 (USB). [Note: Due to the site's unique land use history, it is already within the City limits and the 14 property is already designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map.] 15 16 The site is located at 18011 Stafford Road (Tax Reference 21E16D01100). 17 18 HEARING 19 20 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of 21 November 8, 2021. The following exhibit was received after the publication of the October 28, 2021 22 staff report and was entered into the record at the November 8, 2021 meeting: 23 24 G Exhibits: Public Comments 25 26 Neither for nor Against: 27 G-001 Email from Rick Cook, received November 5, 2021 28 G-002 Email from Nancy Sage, received November 8, 2021 29 30 Opposed: 31 G-201 Letter from Kristy Reilly, received November 8, 2021 32 33 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 34 35 A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code 36 LOC 50.07.003.1.b Burden of Proof 37 LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeals 38 LOC 50.07.003.3 Notice of Public Hearing 39 LOC 50.07.003.4 Hearings before a Hearings Body 40 LOC 50.07.003.15.a Major Development (development that requires a quasi-judicial 41 Comprehensive Plan and/or zoning map amendment) 42 LOC 50.07.003.15.d.iiCriteria for Legislative Decisions 43 LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD 44 LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation Required 45 LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 46 B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 47 Land Use Planning Section B — Development Review 48 Policy B-2 49 Policy B-3 50 LU 21-0039-2020 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 1 of 8 APPROVED 11/22/2021 1 Land Use Planning Section D — Land Use Administration 2 Policy D-1 3 Policy D-5 4 Community Culture— Civic Engagement 5 Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 6 Recreation — Goals 1 & 2 7 Policy 2 8 Policy 6 9 Urbanization 10 Policy A-1 11 Policy A-3 12 Policy C-3 13 C. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (reviewed; not applicable) 14 Metro Code 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes 15 3.09.010 - Purpose and Applicability 16 3.09.020 - Definitions 17 D. Statewide Planning Goals 18 Goal 1 Citizen Involvement 19 Goal 2: Land Use Planning 20 Goal 8: Recreational Needs 21 Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services 22 Goal 14: Urbanization 23 E. Transportation Planning Rule (Chapter 660, Division 12) 24 OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2), Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendment 25 26 CONCLUSION 27 28 The Planning Commission finds that LU 21-0039 does not comply with all of the applicable 29 criteria. 30 31 FINDINGS AND REASONS 32 33 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated October 28, 2021, on LU 21-0039 34 (with all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision, except as to the specific criteria 35 addressed below, and the findings below are adopted as findings for those specific criteria: 36 37 Following are the supplemental findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission that 38 support the decision: 39 40 1. Land Use Planning; Section B - Development Review Policies B-2 and B-3: Policy B-2 41 requires use of the city code to require new development to be adequately served by public 42 facilities and services. Policy B-3 requires the use of the public facility planning process to 43 ensure that development in the community doesn't exceed the capacity of the planned 44 public facilities. 45 Access via Atherton Drive. The Commission received comments stating that access to the 46 future park facility from Atherton Drive would be unsafe and would interfere with the periodic 47 maintenance of the Northwest Natural Gas pipeline and terminal, the ingress and egress of 48 emergency vehicles and landscaping services. An alternative access to the park site from LU 21-0039-2020 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 2 of 8 APPROVED 11/22/2021 1 the Christian City Church to the east of 18011 Stafford Road was suggested by the 2 commenters as a better access. 3 The Commission finds that when an application for development is submitted, LOC 4 50.06.003.1.c.iii will be applicable: "direct permanent access from a development to an 5 arterial street is prohibited where an alternate access is either available or expected to be 6 available". The Commission notes that Stafford Road is a Minor Arterial and therefore the 7 Commission finds that it may be that, if access to Atherton Drive is then found to be 8 "available," then the cited code provision would require access via Atherton Drive. However, 9 the Commission finds that access from Atherton Drive would not adequately serve access 10 for future park improvements and is therefore not consistent with Policy B-2. 11 Traffic Impact on Stafford Road. Commenters stated that Traffic Impact Analysis for a 12 possible future park design underestimates the traffic impacts to Stafford Road from the 13 possible park design and shows that the existing traffic flows at the Stafford Road 14 roundabout are at a level below acceptable standards (LOS F), and commenters stated that 15 future traffic system improvements are not in Clackamas County's Capital Improvement Plan 16 and the capital funds are not available to make the necessary improvements to 17 accommodate additional traffic generated from future park improvements. 18 The Commission finds the City Transportation System Plan (TSP) that was used to comply 19 with the then applicable Comprehensive Plan Policy regarding adequate public facilities for 20 the approved Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and again used for the 2009 USB amendment 21 [LU 09-0047 Ordinance 2420 (Exhibit F-2)] would need to be updated to address the current 22 conditions of the Stafford Road roundabout and associated traffic system. The Commission 23 further finds that even though this USB amendment is not "development," the USB 24 amendment would enable sewer and water service for future park improvements, which in 25 turn could result in development that would generate traffic, and if the roundabout is already 26 in failure, then the transportation facility is not adequate. The Commission finds that the 27 record does not provide sufficient evidence that the public facility planning process was 28 conducted to ensure that the future park development does not exceed the capacity of the 29 planned public facilities and finds that Policy B-3 has not been met. 30 The Commission finds that the City has not demonstrated compliance of Policy B-3 by 31 evidence of adequate transportation capacity for future park improvements resulting from 32 sewer and water service by either showing current capacity of Stafford Road roundabout 33 and surrounding roadway system or by showing coordination between Clackamas County 34 and the City to determine the funding and traffic system design that would ensure future 35 park development on the site doesn't exceed the capacity of the planned transportation 36 public facility. 37 2. Land Use Planning Section D - Land Use Administration Policy D-1: This Policy requires the 38 coordination of the development and amendment of City plans and actions related to land 39 use with other affected agencies, including county, state, Metro, federal agencies, and 40 special districts. 41 The Commission received comments from the Atherton Heights Homeowners' Association 42 (Atherton HOA) and the Palisades Neighborhood Association that the City Parks 43 Department has not been responsive to survey results and multiple neighborhood meetings 44 that were conducted regarding possible park design. As stated under the Recreation 45 Section below, participants in the public hearing stated that the preliminary park design was 46 not responsive to neighborhood priorities and that the design should incorporate more picnic 47 shelters, play areas and pickleball courts. Members of the Atherton HOA and the Palisades 48 Neighborhood Association expressed concerns regarding lighting trespass to adjacent 49 properties, access from Atherton Road and requested to relocate the skate park to Hazelia 50 Field. LU 21-0039-2020 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 3 of 8 APPROVED 11/22/2021 1 As stated under Section 1 above, the Commission finds that the evidence does not 2 demonstrate coordination with Clackamas County to determine funding and traffic system 3 design necessary for any future improvements to the Stafford Road roundabout and 4 surrounding roadway system due to any park development resulting from the availability of 5 utility service to the site. 6 The Commission finds that public review and coordination is required by this Policy D-1 with 7 Clackamas County and with the neighborhood groups' for any roadway improvements 8 associated with the future park improvements. 9 The Commission finds that Policy D-1 is not met because the applicant has not coordinated 10 with these affected agencies. 11 3. Community Culture - Civic Engagement Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5: These Policies require the 12 City to provide citizen involvement opportunities that are appropriate to the scale of a given 13 planning effort and provide opportunities to participate in the planning process, ensure that 14 information is readily accessible and easy to understand, to use community groups, boards 15 and commissions to ensure a diverse representation of land use issues. 16 Commenters expressed concern about the City Parks Dept.'s presentation and the public 17 process provided for a proposed park development at preliminary neighborhood meetings. 18 Further, the commenters stated that the City Parks Department had not been responsive to 19 survey results and multiple neighborhood meetings that were conducted regarding possible 20 park design. As stated under the Recreation Section below, commenters stated that the 21 preliminary park design was not responsive to neighborhood priorities and that the design 22 should incorporate more picnic shelters, play areas and pickleball courts. The Atherton HOA 23 and the Palisades Neighborhood Association expressed concerns regarding lighting 24 trespass to adjacent properties, access from Atherton Road and requested to relocate the 25 skate park to Hazelia Field. The commenters also expressed a desire to have a more 26 collaborative planning process with the City Parks Dept. for the future development of any 27 park facility at the site, to ensure that any future park facility provides choices tailored to 28 meet residents' health and wellness needs for people of all ages, economic status and 29 abilities. 30 The Commission finds that the notice of the proposed USB amendment met LOC 31 50.07.003.16.a.ii's requirement that the application be "processed as" a major 32 development," including the major development notification requirements (LOC 33 50.07.003.15.c/ LOC 50.07.003.3.c. However, the Commission finds that these Policies 34 require additional public involvement measures because the USB amendment, which would 35 allow water and sewer service to the site, could result in future park development that would 36 serve local and regional recreational needs, and thus could have impacts to adjacent 37 properties. The Community Culture / Civic Engagement Policies have not been met. 38 39 [If and when an application is re-filed that would include a USB amendment that would allow 40 park improvements, the Commission recommends and encourages holding a broader 41 community discussion and more public engagement regarding the specific design of the 42 future park facility.] 43 44 4. Community Culture/ Recreation - Policies 2 and 6: These policies state that the City is 45 "subject to financial constraints, [to] fill service gaps in essential recreation services, as 46 identified by the Parks Plan, through development of new facilities at existing sites, through 47 partnerships, or at new sites if necessary" and to "address the land use, public facility and 48 transportation impacts of park and open space land acquisition and development through ' The Commission interprets neighborhood groups to be an "affected agency" for purposes of this Policy. LU 21-0039-2020 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 4 of 8 APPROVED 11/22/2021 1 coordination with affected neighborhoods, state, federal and regional agencies, and other 2 jurisdictions." 3 4 Commenters stated that the construction of lighted ballfields with artificial turf will impact 5 adjacent properties and is not consistent with the neighbors' desire for a more natural park 6 with covered picnic tables, quality play structures, and smaller recreation courts expressed 7 in the survey results (as stated under Land Use Planning Section D, above). Commenters 8 requested to have any future proposed skate park be located to the east side of Hazelia 9 Field, instead of locating it on the subject property, adjacent to a residential neighborhood. A 10 comment stated that the neighborhood already has 12 athletic fields within 1/4 of a mile of 11 the site. Field lights and traffic from Lakeridge High School, Luscher Farm and Hazelia Field 12 and the new golf course and the swim center would add to the neighborhood impacts, in 13 addition to any proposed park improvements with water and sewer service on the subject 14 property. 15 The Commission finds that the Parks Dept.'s prioritization of active recreation facilities such 16 as ballfields has incorrectly minimized the need for passive recreational facilities in a future 17 park design. The Commission also finds that the City Parks Dept. has failed to demonstrate 18 the need for additional athletic fields, given that the neighborhood has 12 athletic fields 19 within '/4- mile of the site. In addition, the Commission finds the proposed athletic fields 20 would not be available to all segments of Lake Oswego's population, as they do not serve 21 the community's diverse recreational needs. Accordingly, the Commission finds that Policies 22 2 and 6 have not been met. 23 24 5. Healthy Ecosystems, Background, Policy 2 states that the City is to "Maintain Resource 25 Protection (RP) district regulations for the protection of significant streams and wetlands, 26 and their adjacent vegetated corridors, consistent with Goal 5, Metro Title 3, and Clean 27 Water Act requirements. Policy 7 states "Provide development standards that require the 28 following habitat-friendly development practices where RP districts, or RC or HBA protection 29 areas, are established (list of practices omitted): 30 Commenters expressed concerns regarding potential impacts to Pecan Creek from any 31 future park development. (A tributary to Pecan Creek is located along the west property line 32 of the subject property and is designated as an RP resource on the Sensitive Lands Map.) 33 The commenters stated that the future park development would generate stormwater runoff 34 that would exceed the capacity of Pecan Creek to manage surface water and storm 35 drainage. Stormwater runoff will enter the aquifer, and that aquifer supplies potable water to 36 many properties south of the property that are on wells resulting in catastrophic impacts to 37 the local watershed and the Tualatin River. The commenters stated that any proposed park 38 improvements could also have impacts to the wildlife corridor along Pecan Creek. It was 39 also commented that any proposed park improvement could have adverse impacts to an 40 active beaver habitat that is in Pecan Creek adjacent to this property. The commenters did 41 not identify the specific relevant policy. 42 The Commission assumes that the comments were directed toward the above Policies 2 43 and 7. The resource has been identified and delineated as a Sensitive Lands Overlay 44 District in the Sensitive Lands Map, as shown on the Aerial Photograph Figure 1.2 of the 45 attached staff report dated October 28, 2021 (LU 21-0039). The Commission finds that the 46 proposed USB amendment does not alter the RP designation of Pecan Creek and that any 47 development would be subject to the RP District standards, LOC 50.05.010. The 48 development of any future park improvements, including those that could result from 49 providing water and sewer to the site, would be subject to the RP District standards, 50 consistent with Policies 2 and 7. 51 LU 21-0039-2020 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 5 of 8 APPROVED 11/22/2021 1 5. Urbanization /Annexation Policies - Policy C-3: "Ensure[s] that ... expansion of Lake 2 Oswego's Urban Services Boundary does not detract from the City's ability to provide 3 services to existing City residents." 4 Commenters state that, while they supported the proposed USB amendment, there is not 5 enough information in the record to determine if any park improvements resulting from 6 extending water and sewer service to the site would detract from the City's ability to provide 7 services to existing City residents. 8 9 The Staff Report, pg. 13, incorporated the Findings from the earlier inclusion of the site into 10 the USB, and stated that "the Comprehensive Plan and the Public Facilities Plan have 11 nevertheless continued to make appropriate provisions to accommodate the sites future 12 development as a park," and that "[t]he development review application for the site will ... 13 require development to be commiserate with the level of available public services and 14 facilities, through LOC 50.06.008 and LOC 50.07.003.5.a.iii." 15 16 The Commission finds that Policy C-3 has not been met because the evidence submitted is 17 insufficient to show that the earlier finding was correct, and if correct, that during the period 18 since then, that the ability to provide services has not degraded. 19 20 6. Transportation Planning Rule - OAR 660-012-0060 provides that if an amendment to a 21 functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a 22 zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility ["physical 23 facility that moves or assist in the movement of people or goods including facilities identified 24 in OAR 660-012-0020" OAR 660-012-0005], then the local government must put in place 25 measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under 26 section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. 27 Based on the rationale and findings stated under Section 2 (Land Use Planning) above, the 28 Commission finds that the record does not provide sufficient evidence OAR 660-012-0060 29 has been met. 30 31 7. Statewide Planning Goals 32 Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement: Statewide Planning Goal 1's purpose is 33 "[t]o develop a citizen-involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be 34 involved in all phases of the [land use] planning process." See also ORS 197.160(1). The 35 Goal requires the governing body of each city and county to develop a citizen-involvement 36 program, concerning the notification and inclusion of the general public in the land use 37 planning process. 38 The Commission finds that implementing land use regulations provide notification 39 requirements and the opportunity for public involvement through a public hearing in 40 considering amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, specifically LOC 50.07.003.16, .15, 41 and LOC 50.07.003.3.c. However, the Commission finds, based on the same rationale and 42 findings as stated in Section 1, Land Use, Policy D-1, above, that the process followed for 43 this USB amendment, which would result in water and sewer service to the site for park 44 development does not comply with Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. 45 46 Statewide Planning Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: The purpose of Statewide Planning Goal 8 47 is to "satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where 48 appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination 49 resorts." LU 21-0039-2020 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 6 of 8 APPROVED 11/22/2021 1 Based upon the same rationale and findings as stated above for Community Culture/ 2 Recreation - Policy 2, the Commission finds that Statewide Planning Goal 8 - Recreational 3 Needs, has not been met. 4 5 Statewide Planning Goal 11 - Public Facilities: Statewide Planning Goal 11 requires 6 jurisdictions "[t]o plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public 7 facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." Goal 11's 8 primary objective is to guide and support urban and rural development with public facilities 9 and services appropriate for, but limited to, the needs and requirements of the area to be 10 served. 11 If approved, this USB amendment would make the property again eligible to receive urban 12 level of public services, e.g., water and sewer service, as appropriate for the level of 13 development, pursuant to LOC 50.06.008 and LOC 50.07.003.5. 14 The Commission finds that the plans for any future park development and the availability of 15 public facilities to the future park development need to be reviewed as a part of the USB 16 amendment. [The Commission notes that issues related to site design would be addressed 17 in greater detail as a part of the development application before the Development Review 18 Commission.] 19 The Commission finds that any future park improvements, if within the USB, would allow 20 connections to public water, sanitary sewer, and transportation networks and that the City 21 has not demonstrated that adequate public facilities would be provided for those future park 22 developments. The Commission finds that Statewide Planning Goal 11 - Public Facilities, 23 has not been met. 24 25 Statewide Planning Goal 14— Urbanization: The purpose of this goal is to provide for an 26 orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban 27 population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of 28 land, and to provide for livable communities." 29 30 The Commission finds, for the reasons discussed in the above findings, that the City did not 31 demonstrate that public services would be provided in an orderly and efficient manner. 32 Accordingly, the Commission finds that Statewide Planning Goal 14 — Urbanization, has not 33 been met. 34 35 ORDER 36 37 IT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake 38 Oswego that LU 21-0039 be denied. 39 40 DATED this 22th day of November, 2021 41 42 43 /s/ Robert Heape 44 Robert Heape, Chair 45 Lake Oswego Planning Commission 46 47 48 LU 21-0039-2020 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 7 of 8 APPROVED 11/22/2021 1 ATTEST: 2 3 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION — November 8, 2021 4 5 AYES: Heape, Pape, Phillips 6 NOES: Leek, Stewart 7 ABSTAIN: Buchanan 8 EXCUSED: None 9 10 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER— November 22, 2021 11 AYES: Heape, Pape, Phillips 12 NOES: Leek 13 ABSTAIN: Buchanan, Rigby 14 EXCUSED: Stewart LU 21-0039-2020 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 8 of 8