Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2022-01-04 E a )10 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING S MINUTES V +� January 4, 2022 FGO� 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. on January 4, 2022. The meeting was held both virtually via video conferencing and in-person at City Hall, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Buck, Councilors Rapf, Manz, Mboup,Wendland, Nguyen attended in-person and Councilor Verdick attended via video conferencing. Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Jason Loos, City Attorney; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Ivan Anderholm, Parks & Recreation Director; Kari Linder, City Recorder; Rob Amsberry, Program Lead I Flood Plain Management 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Buck led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. ELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT Mayor Buck moved to nominate John Wendland as Council President for 2022. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Buck and Councilors Rapf, Manz, Mboup, Wendland, Nguyen, and Verdick voting `Aye.' (7-0) 5. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comment was provided. 5.1 PRIOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP No prior follow-up was provided. 6. PRESENTATION 6.1 Proclamation — Martin Luther King Jr. Day City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 12 January 4, 2022 Mayor Buck read the Proclamation, declaring January 17, 2022, as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the City of Lake Oswego. He extended an invitation to join in honoring Dr. King by viewing a pre-recorded program hosted jointly by the local Baha'i Community and the City Library starting on Monday, January 10th. A silent walk hosted by Respond To Racism in partnership with the City would take place at Millennium Park Plaza on January 16' at 2 pm. Details for both events could be found on the City's website. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7.1 Ordinance 2847, Code Amendments to conform to the National Flood Management Insurance Program and Adopting Findings (LU 20-0005). Jason Loos, City Attorney, read the parameters of a legislative public hearing. Paul Espe, Associate Planner, presented the Council Report for the proposed revisions of the Code sections related to the flood management overlay to conform with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Staff received written testimony from Mark Heiser, which had been entered into the record as Exhibit G-4, indicating he did not support the proposed Code amendments unless his concerns regarding flood mapping were resolved. • The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would be the final authority on how local governments control their flood management. The City's current flood management Code language did not comply with FEMA requirements. An email from FEMA dated July 8, 2021 was provided to staff showing that FEMA supported the proposed Code amendments. The changes were reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 27t", and FEMA would provide a formal notification once the ordinance had been adopted by Council. • The flood management area designation and mapping were to notify potential buyers that certain property was located within the special hazard area. The designation also served to notify those occupying special flood hazard areas that they assume the responsibility for their actions following flood management. The requirements would allow property owners to continue to maintain eligibility for flood insurance and disaster relief. • A list of Code sections to be revised as a result of adopting the FEMA model ordinance was shared. Key changes addressed modification of definitions, permit requirements, changes to subdivision rules and manufactured dwelling rules, and accessory structures such as boat houses. • The formal deadline for adoption of the ordinance language was January 1st. Staff had communicated with the FEMA specialist for Region 10 to let them know the Code revisions would be adopted a few days after the deadline. FEMA had recently reviewed the draft Code revisions and would issue formal letter of compliance. • Staff recommended tentative approval and direction to prepare findings for the January 18' Council meeting. Mayor Buck asked if the new model Code had anything to do with the solvency of the NFIP. Rob Amsberry, Program Lead I Flood Plain Management, replied the purpose was to provide consistency in the Code throughout the United States. He provided detail on the history of the Code to date. Mayor Buck asked if any practical changes would be made to how projects City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12 January 4, 2022 impacted by the Code amendments would be processed. Mr. Amsberry replied that the biggest change in Lake Oswego would be the requirements for a standalone floodplain development permit. Currently, floodplain requirements were managed through land use development and through issuance of building permits, but FEMA considered some allowances made by the City to be development and those were not getting caught by the review process. For example, Childs Rd could be paved with an overlay without a permit process, but it was technically a violation as the road was in a mapped floodway and raising it would force water onto other properties. He confirmed the change would be beneficial even with the variance and an area-wide exception to allow for boathouses larger than 200 sq ft. Councilor Rapf received confirmation that a variance would be required for construction of a boathouse if it was over 200 sq ft. He was concerned because the maximum length of a boat allowed on the lake was 22 ft, so a 10 ft by 20 ft boathouse would not be large enough. He asked if it would be possible to negotiate with FEMA to allow for 220 sq ft or 250 sq ft, otherwise everyone building a boathouse would be applying for a variance. Mr. Amsberry replied months of back- and-forth with FEMA Region 10 took place on the issue and FEMA would not budge. In the short term, a flood plain management variance would be done for the boathouses and a mechanism would be set up through the building permit process requiring a bit of additional paperwork. Staff would set the criteria and do the review for those boathouses; that would allow building of a boathouse exceeding FEMA's strict requirements. He confirmed reviewing the variance would be the City's decision and provided assurance that FEMA would not be contacting homeowners about their boathouses. He further clarified that there would be a fee for the variance based on the City's fee schedule in addition to the fee for the permit. Councilor Rapf stated he did not believe a fee should be charged and suggested that the current fee mechanism not be exceeded for a boathouse. He did not want the process to cost the community members more time, money, or cause more restrictions on what they wanted to do. He did not want this to be a means for the City to make more money and wanted the variance process to be smooth. Mr. Amsberry replied no charges were assessed for flood plain review or management. Those costs were provided from the Surface Water Utility Fund through his position. No fee for formatting the variance had been discussed, but discussion had taken place about making it as simple as possible. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, emphasized that the variance would be ministerial which meant it would be over the counter with no associated fee. Staff would draft template findings because all boathouses would be in the same category relative to their minimal to no impact on floods. The variance application would be considered by staff at the same time as a building permit and would ultimately go to Council as part of the fee resolution process. Councilor Rapf stated he advocated for no fee on the variances going forward. Councilor Wendland asked for the history of the 500 sq-ft limit for a boathouse and asked if the same would apply to boathouses on the river. Mr. Amsberry replied that typically boathouses were not located on rivers in favor of docks that would rise and fall with the tidal influence. One could be built, but it would have to go through many more hoops than just those for the City. If the Code were written to limit a boathouse to 500 sq ft per Lake Corp rules, it would also apply on the Willamette and Tualatin Rivers. The water on the canal and the lake was at a static level except during a flood, whereas rivers would be affected by weather and tides. He confirmed people who already had a boathouse would not be affected by the Code changes and that they would apply only to those who chose to remodel or add a new structure, in which case they would fill out an additional form at the counter. Councilor Wendland asked if FEMA had given any indication that City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12 January 4, 2022 they would be averse to following the City's 500 sq-ft limit for boathouses. He understood the Code needed to be updated but wanted to know the big-picture parameters. He asked if the discussions with FEMA appeared to be favorable to the community and that they would support the City as it figured things out. Mr. Amsberry replied that he believed so. Mr. Boone added that conversations with FEMA on the variance process had been held and FEMA had already signed off and it would be official once Council adopted the ordinance. Councilor Wendland asked about any adverse impact on existing or future projects. Mr. Amsberry replied the question was difficult to answer but noted the water pipeline project across the McVey Bridge had taken into account the impacts upstream and downstream, and that was a function that was already in place. The new Code might create extra work for some of the municipal projects but no differently than in the past when something was developed in the floodplain and needed to abide by regulations already in place. For example, work would be necessary with FEMA when fill was added to the new sewage treatment plant site, but that would not change with the new Code; it would be necessary to go through the hoops and the outcome would not change. Mr. Boone further clarified that the whole concept of the Code amendment was to be in line with the model Code by FEMA. The difficulty was that FEMA had previous model Codes that communities substantially complied with, but each community was a bit different. So, FEMA required consistency and the changes to the Code were functionally the same,just written in the FEMA language and definitions. The City's Code had been close to what FEMA wanted to begin with. Councilor Mboup asked what the implications were if the City did not comply. Mr. Amsberry explained that FEMA would put the community on probation which would eventually raise the insurance rates for those who had flood insurance. Continued non-compliance could result in suspension from the program and possibly increased flood insurance rates as had been seen in other communities. He did not know if FEMA would not come to the rescue in a disaster in those circumstances. It would be FEMA's prerogative. Councilor Mboup noted that meant the City needed to approve the amendments. He asked if the flood plain was only around the lake or beyond. Mr. Amsberry replied it included the lake, the canal, on the Tualatin and Willamette Rivers, Spring Brook Creek, and a short segment of Lost Dog Creek. Mayor Buck asked if the map updates would be done this year. Mr. Espe stated that work could not be started until the approved Code was in place according to FEMA.A consulting firm qualified by FEMA to submit the appropriate data in the appropriate format would be hired to put the map together for FEMA's approval. Councilor Manz thanked staff for the detailed work and inquired how many revisions or build outs of boathouses were seen in a typical year. Mr. Amsberry replied about six in lake up. In lake down, there were about 30 last year. Public Testimony Mark Heiser requested as Council moved forward with the new regulations regarding floodplain administration that the City have complete and accurate floodplain maps. The property owners in the floodplain along the Oswego Canal have floodplain lines that were up to 3 ft or more higher than they should be. The materials submitted this evening included information regarding significant errors in the City's flood management Map A that were presented to the Planning Commission at its September 27th meeting. His desire was to have the flood map be accurate City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12 January 4, 2022 before any further changes were made. Nearly 100 property owners were adjacent to the canal affected by a floodplain map that was in error. As noted in his testimony to the Planning Commission, the City's floodplain administrator acknowledged that his testimony was not in error and recognized that the current floodplain maps for these property owners were inaccurate. He asked the City to comply with Code Section 50.05.11(4)(b) which read, "Within 90 days of receiving information establishing a possible error in the existence or location of a flood management area, the City Manager shall provide notice of a public hearing at which the Planning Commission will review the error for compliance with this section. Notice of the hearing shall be sent to property owners who have property that will be included or withdrawn from the flood management area as a result of the change. Notice shall also be sent to owners of property within 100 ft of the affected properties. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the flood management area boundaries should be changed." The Planning Commission assured him the issue would be brought before Council because they had been presented with evidence of a significant error and not just a possible error in the floodplain map. At the South Shore Bridge was the equivalent of a 3-ft high dam that extended across the lake because the adjustments made to the 2012 floodplain maps stopped there and no adjustments were done. Other information in his written testimony addressed affects to and improvement of the flow down the canal. The 3-ft Lake Corp dam on the Tualatin River affected the flood elevation in downtown Tualatin about three to five miles upstream. He believed many property owners could be removed from the floodplain and even more could see a greater use of their property. The new Code would make portions of property unusable without correct adjustments. Those paying flood insurance had seen an 18 percent increase in its cost and that increase would be seen for the next five to seven years. The flood plain elevation along the lake was reduced by 3 ft, but the residents adjacent to and along the canal were left behind. It was time for the City to follow its own Code and move forward quickly. The remainder of the materials in his submission outlined the three major adjustments that had not been included in the current flood analysis for the canal. Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Amsberry stated that he agreed that differences existed in flood elevations in mapping at the canal at the entrance to the lake. When Lake Corp rebuilt its spillway, it was required to perform a letter of map revision to obtain pre-approval from FEMA. It spelled out the changes proposed, the benefits to the area it was to cover. At the time, the Corp of Engineers and FEMA decided that the cutoff for the map revision would be the mouth of the canal. After the spillway was rebuilt, the study was redone, the as-built information was submitted, and the maps were revised. A possible discrepancy existed between the actual flood level of the lake during a hundred-year flood event and the canal at that point. The engineer who had worked with Lake Corp said the slight difference migrated upstream to about the South Shore Bridge. Mr. Heiser proposed that the City remap the canal with all the information available. Mr. Heiser had raised other issues that he might not agree with, and the City had studies showing that Mr. Heiser might not have all the information necessary to demonstrate how much material was dredged out of the canal, how the head gate was built, and that the engineering reports show that it did not present a rise in the flood elevations. All of that would feed into going forward with a letter of map revision for that portion of the canal that would be laid out in the engineering analysis to determine exactly where the changes needed to be made and how expensive they would be. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12 January 4, 2022 Mayor Buck closed the testimony portion of the public hearing. Mr. Amsberry in response to a question from Councilor Wendland stated the timeline came down to Council's direction to engineering staff to move forward. Mr. Boone clarified the Council Report usually provided for tentative approval and direction to staff to adopt findings to be brought back to the next meeting. The only testimony heard tonight by Council had already been presented to the Planning Commission. The Commission's adopted findings were on Page 51 of the Council Report which said there was nothing to do about the floodplain map right now. If the Council agreed with the Planning Commission's findings, it could adopt them, and then adopt the ordinance tonight and not request additional findings as they would state the same as presented to the Planning Commission. Councilor Manz moved to enact Ordinance 2847 and adopt the Findings. Councilor Wendland seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion was passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Rapf, Manz, Mboup, Wendland, Nguyen, and Verdick voting `aye', (7-0). Mayor Buck assured Mr. Heiser that Council had heard the requests for the floodplain map revisions and would take them under consideration when it set its goals for this year. 8. STUDY SESSION 8.1 Chapter X Charter Amendment Impacts. Ivan Anderholm, Parks and Recreation Director, presented the Council report for the Chapter X Charter Amendment impacts, a citizen measure that passed on November 2nd. The Charter amendment had an effect on 15 designated properties that were all natural or natural with some developed elements. • The amendment restricted the types of improvements that could be made on the properties. Implementation would involve a review and explanation of all development proposals of any type followed by a review by the City Attorney's office for interpretation against the amendment. • He detailed the restrictions in the amendments, but noted soft-surfaced trails and sanitary facilities, among others, would be allowed. • Maintenance would be allowed on existing facilities such as parking lots if it did not further impair the natural condition. • Situations that would affect the community would be parking access for all users, impact on replacement of utilities specifically water tanks, and some telecommunications facilities would not be allowed upgrades. Mayor Buck noted that the City's version of the Charter amendment planned to adopt maps. That action was not part of the citizen measure. He asked for the consequences of having no maps but stated he understood the properties had been clearly identified. Mr. Anderholm replied with an example from the amendment which stated West Waluga Park was 22.8 acres when it was actually 36.2 acres. Obviously, a development proposal would be taken to the City Attorney's City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12 January 4, 2022 Office for a legal opinion on the meaning of 22.8 acres as it would not encompass the entire park. Mayor Buck stated maps would be adopted to make it very clear. The language in the citizen's amendment was vaguer in some respects. Regarding the public utilities, he asked if a way existed to condemn the restriction if it was for the public good. Mr. Loos confirmed that it would have to go to a vote of the people pursuant to the Charter language. Mayor Buck asked for information regarding the removal of trees for safety or habitat restoration. Mr. Anderholm stated that was specifically allowed for restoration, invasives removal, and fire mitigation. Problems would arise due to commercial logging, but the City did not remove trees with the intent of harvesting them. Councilor Mboup inquired about parking access for users of the properties. He was concerned about the City being trapped between neighbors complaining about parking on their street and complaints about no available parking in park areas. Mr. Anderholm replied any changes would have to be approved by the voters. The amendments stated that no construction or development of any parking lot could be done except for redoing an existing lot without expansion. Councilor Mboup further inquired about replacement of utilities which would also be a safety measures He understood people voted for the amendment to preserve the city's parks, but no one in their right mind believed it would be appropriate to conduct logging or build apartments in a park. Replacement or improvement of telecommunications equipment was a big issue and he asked what the process would be if the City was faced with an emergency. Mr. Loos replied that telecommunications facilities were specifically included in the language. In theory, other utilities such as those underground could be constructed without disturbing the natural conditions. Those would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Councilor Mboup asked if it would be wise to consider a Charter amendment to give the City or other entities responsibility for the safety of the community to specify the issues Park staff were facing. He was not politicking but believed most of the voters did not know the impacts of the passage of the amendment. He suggested approaching the supporters of the amendment to discuss solutions to the problems. The Council was governing for safety, and he was elected to accomplish things for the City and its citizens. If that could not be done, a solution was needed. Councilor Rapf asked for the definition of a soft surface in terms of the amendment. Mr. Anderholm replied asphalt and concrete were considered hardscape and were prohibited. Soft surface would be gravel, wood chips, and similar material. Councilor Rapf understood that someone in a motorized or self-propelled wheelchair would find use of those surfaces challenging. Mr. Anderholm stated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) had provisions for using natural materials for soft surfaces that would be compliant with the amendment such as decomposed granite as used in Woodmont Natural Park and Headlee Pathway. It was not ideal but did meet the requirements. Councilor Rapf asked what would happen if the reservoir on Cooke's Butte would rupture and whether the City would be able to fix it. Mr. Anderholm replied that the City would be allowed to fix it but could not change it in a way that would further impair or be inconsistent with the natural conditions. Councilor Rapf also expressed concern about the safety of the community and commented to those who voted for the Charter amendment were duped and lied to about the unintended consequences for the city. It put lives in danger. For those who asked why a tower was necessary on Cooke's Butte or about further telecommunications in the city, he asked them to consider the communications necessary for the police and other safety officials to keep kids safe in the schools. Two or three weeks ago, the city's police officers needed that communications equipment to keep the kids safe at Lake Oswego High School but because of the lies that certain people in the community were spreading about what the City did, kids were City Council Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12 January 4, 2022 being put into extreme danger. He stated that people who voted for the amendment should be ashamed. They needed to do their homework and to not listen to people on the internet or on Nextdoor. They were hurting the community and the City's ability to protect people and kids. Councilor Nguyen noted some intended consequences were the result of the passage of the amendment. COVID-19 limited the face-to-face interactions typical to an election and further limited understanding of the implications. The amendment did not serve the city well, though it might have been well-intentioned. The implementation and addressing the day-to-day needs of such an amendment were sometimes not evident at the time it was passed. He encouraged that investigation continue into the unintended consequences and contradictions. Everyone could stand behind protecting the natural areas and if the most controversial thing in Lake Oswego was about protecting the parks, it was a great thing. More understanding was necessary as was consideration of more community involvement in offering an additional amendment. Everyone must come together and recognize they were all passionate about the natural areas and how to best protect them, and to ensure that the best intentions and the spirit of the law was addressed. Councilor Wendland agreed with the Councilors' comments so far, particularly with Councilor Rapf's mention of safety of school kids who could be endangered by a short-sighted approach. What bothered him most was that Council reached out to the group sponsoring the measure to help fix some of the issues and tried to work with them. The Council's measure was very similar, but it was aware of some nuances that were very important to the community that needed to be correct. Council and City staff had an opportunity to reflect and figure out the issues to be corrected and he recommended that be considered during Council goal setting, and perhaps for another amendment for the ballot in November. He noted that vandalism had taken place at a couple of city parks last fall and one method to prevent future vandalism would be to install cameras to identify those responsible. Under the new measure, installing cameras would not be allowed. At another park affected by vandalism, cameras were not available, and the damage cost the taxpayers many thousands of dollars. Also, obtaining replacements for items damaged could take many months under the current conditions which had real consequences for the community. He would like an efficient and safety-oriented city and the amendment could be corrected through another vote, but the citizens needed to know that elections cost money and time. Under the amendment, improvements that could save water, for example, could not be made unless the issue was taken to the voters and, depending upon the request, it could be confusing, and the citizens would likely think Council was stupid for placing it on the ballot. He supported placing something on November's ballot to deal with such unintended consequences. Councilor Manz thanked her colleagues for their comments on the importance of the natural areas and people's rights to use them and to be safe in the community. She hoped staff would come back before the Council if they found something substantive so Council could continue to address it. Mayor Buck pointed out that the towers supporting emergency communications were different from those for cell phones which were now included on utility poles. It was Council's duty as leaders to provide for the safety of the community. The two measures were very similar in ways the community really wanted such as in protecting natural areas. The City wanted more areas protected but, by and large, both groups were talking about the same parts of town and the same values. Differences were small but consequential, like the emergency radio communications City Council Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12 January 4, 2022 tower. People were sold on the idea that corporations were making money on cell towers in the parks. That was never the case, and none of the Councilors would be in favor of that. Many City services ran through natural areas necessarily because of, for example, water flow and the city's topography. The City needed to maintain those facilities and it either could fix them immediately or go out for single votes every time which was not a great option. He suggested further discussion at Council's February retreat. He believed the community could be engaged for a more positive outcome on the issue. Councilor Nguyen requested staff keep an inventory of the issues they find as it would be helpful for Council to consider those during its goal setting. Mr. Anderholm responded that two projects in the works were affected by the passage of the amendment: One pertaining to parking off Child's Road on the lower portion of Stevens Meadows which had gone to bid but was canceled because it did not have the required master plan process according to the amendment. The other was related to the acquisition of the Yates property and reconfiguration of the asphalt pathway traveling through the existing Hallinan Woods property from O'Brien St to Highland Elementary. Parks had been looking for solutions on how to reroute the pathway to avoid the steepness of the ravine and improve the quality of the stream, but the passage of the amendment meant the plans for a hard-surfaced pathway for use by school children were shelved, though other possible options were being considered for ADA compliance. 9. CONSENT AGENDA 9.1 Ordinance 2878, Adopting Findings and Conclusions for the Urban Services Boundary Change to include the Rassekh property (LU 21-0039). 9.2 Resolution 22-01, Council Liaison and Committee Assignments for 2022. Councilor Manz moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Wendland seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion was passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Rapf, Manz, Mboup, Wendland, Nguyen, and Verdick voting `aye', (7-0). 10. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 11. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL There was no information from Council. 12. REPORTS OF OFFICERS Martha Bennett, City Manager, updated on the difficulty Republic Services had in getting to some people's homes to pick up trash because of snow and ice and staffing shortfalls. Republic pledged that in case of a delay for some customers, pickup of extra refuse would be at no extra charge. Republic also requested that people update their phone numbers with them because they City Council Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12 January 4, 2022 were having difficulty reaching some long-time customers. Phone calls from Republic might indicate they were coming from Phoenix as that was where corporate headquarters were located. • Today, she and the Mayor had a discussion with leadership at PGE about the vulnerability of their lines to trees. The question in the last few months was how to better coordinate tree trimming. She had received several complaints about the quality of tree trimming. Staff was considering a short-term process for a more constructive engagement between PGE, Public Works, and Planning staff and then a longer-range conversation about managing reliable power with a robust urban forest, and a community conversation about managing trees near power lines. The initial part of the conversation could be about City-owned properties which might feed into a natural resource management plan. • Additionally, power redundancy at the water treatment plant was discussed. She had shared with PGE that Director Rooney and her staff were evaluating how to make generator backups easier at the plants as part of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), and discussions addressed alternatives to supplying generation to other communities in the event of an emergency. PGE shared that it was working on hardening at least one of the two feeds going into locations with dual feeds. • Also discussed with PGE was electric vehicle (EV) charging because the federal infrastructure act included a lot of dollars for EV charging throughout the country. Discussed was the process for local jurisdictions and utilities to work together to try to roll out a higher level of EV charging, especially for multi-family projects. Mayor Buck noted PGE wanted to provide a very high level of service and was committed to working with the City on a comprehensive approach on ensuring a resilient system. Councilor Mboup believed PGE was doing a poor job in Lake Oswego, such as telling the city it had to relive what had happened last year. Ms. Bennett noted PGE was cutting trees right now, but just for power purposes and not for the health of the trees. Councilor Mboup pointed out that the city was paying PGE and it was a billion-dollar company which had the obligation to fix the issue. If a restaurant in the city was responsible for food poisoning it was shut down. PGE should be treated the same way because of what happened last year. They should not say the issues would happen again because the trees were not their responsibility. A power line under a tree was not the fault of the tree. PGE needed to be held accountable and fix the problems ASAP. The Council needed to be clear to PGE that it worked for the people, not for PGE. Ms. Bennett replied that the number one objective was to increase the power reliability for the city but it was necessary to recognize the financial constraints. Councilor Mboup responded that PGE's financial constraints should not be a factor because the City was paying them at an expensive rate. They had the money. PGE was even asking the city to pay for green energy. They should not be defended; they had to upgrade their equipment and do a better job. Councilor Nguyen noted a conversation he had with PGE where he was told that lines 20 ft above the ground were not their responsibility and that PGE's lines were 45 ft or higher. Ms. Bennett replied it was a concern in part because PGE was leaving branches in the telecommunication lines which was very short-sighted because snow and ice could take the line and the pole down. That was one reason why increasing the level of coordination and communication with PGE about what it was trying to accomplish was important. She had seen several places where PGE had simply topped the trees and that was not acceptable. They admitted they were not using arborists to evaluate trees and PGE was trimming in a way that was City Council Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 January 4, 2022 killing the trees. She would rather have a conversation about tree removal than having make a property owner come back two or three years later to remove a tree killed through trimming. She agreed with Councilor Mboup about holding PGE accountable. Mayor Buck noted the City and PGE shared the same goals. PGE heard complaints both about over-trimming for power resiliency and complaints about the power going out from untrimmed trees. A partnership would help PGE do its job better. Councilor Manz asked for more information about the franchise agreements with internet, cable, and broadband in the city. Those services had grown in breadth over the years as more cable was strung. Ms. Bennett replied she would bring information about the licensing agreement back to Council. Mayor Buck updated that ODOT was requesting amendment of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as required by the federal government to move forward on the implementation of the tolling program. The Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) and the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) were to make advisory votes this month, but both would delay the votes. Strong support existed for asking ODOT to show how their request complied with the goals of the RTP or even with the intent of legislation passed to relieve congestion and provide alternative modes of transportation. A resolution was being considered with support of cities throughout the region to make a concrete ask. It was good to see leaders in Multnomah and Washington counties get behind Clackamas County and cities such as Oregon City and West Linn whose citizens would be greatly impacted by the tolling project. The importance of the project was recognized, especially the seismic work on the Abernethy Bridge, but it was believed ODOT was presenting the region with a false dilemma that, if it did not move forward on tolling, the bridge project could not be done. That was not true as ODOT had other funding and should go back to the drawing board but should also continue moving forward on the same timeline to start Phase 1 a while a comprehensive region-wide plan was worked on as well as plans on how to pay for and congestion-price the projects. He confirmed the desire was for the entire metro area to be considered so tolling started everywhere at the same time. The region wanted the value pricing model built. If tolling was done just on 1-205, it would just be a toll to pay for a road. People had no public transportation alternatives and had no choice but to use 1-205 or divert. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Lake Oswego City Council will meet under authority of ORS 192.660 (2)(e) Conduct deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions and (f) Consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. Jason Loos, City Attorney, read the parameters of the Executive Session. The broadcast portion of the meeting concluded at 7:21 p.m. The City Council met in Executive Session from 7:30 p.m. — 8:31 p.m. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:31 p.m. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12 January 4, 2022 Respectfully submitted, Kari Linder'City Recorder Approved by the City Council on February 15, 2022 Joseph r1. Buck, Mayor City Council Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12 January 4, 2022