Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2022-03-17 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES V March 17, 2022 aREGO� 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. on March 17, 2022. The meeting was held both virtually via video conferencing and in person in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Buck and Councilors Verdick, Manz, Mboup, Wendland, and Nguyen. Councilor Rapf was excused. Staff Present: Megan Phelan, Assistant City Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Evan Fransted, Senior Planner; Kari Linder, City Recorder; Scot Siegel, Community Development Director; Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Jessica Morey-Collins, Senior Development Specialist; Brian Don, Building Official; Ivan Anderholm, Parks and Recreation Director; Bruce Powers, Park Analyst/Project Manager Others Present: Jennifer Marsicek, Senior Associate, Scott I Edwards Architecture; Michael Moerlins, Associate/Senior Mechanical Engineer, Interface Engineering 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Buck led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Buck announced that, for 33 years, the City of Lake Oswego has earned Tree City USA recognition from the national Arbor Day Foundation for demonstrating a strong commitment to managing and caring for trees. He provided background on America's National Arbor Day (Proclamation — April as Arbor Month), now in its 150th year. For the second year in a row, Governor Brown has proclaimed the entire month of April as Oregon Arbor Month. In signing the Proclamation, Mayor Buck announced that the City will follow suit, with the Proclamation posted to the City website. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 19 March 17, 2022 In Person at City Hall Council Chamber • Linda Ganzini Ms. Ganzini spoke on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network (LOSN). She thanked City staff for soliciting their thoughts about various City plans in recent months. LOSN was gratified to see climate-change issues addressed in the 2022 Council Goals, reflecting the importance of sustainability seen in the recent community survey findings. Having attended the previous evening's PARKS Board meeting, she reported that they supported two of the three ideas put forward by staff for consideration later in this Council meeting (Agenda Item 7.2); they were perceived as straightforward and likely to be cost-effective. However, the PARKS Board had hesitated to endorse the third idea, i.e., to expand the use of solar panels from half of the roof area at the Lake Oswego Recreation and Aquatics Center (LORAC) to the full area, at an additional outlay of about $500,000. She asked that Council refrain from discarding the idea at this point. More information is needed on financial aspects: (1) Solar panels on the full roof surface would supply 7% of all energy for LORAC, a significant amount because of the energy used for pool operations. (2) No calculation has been made of payback period for the solar panels. (3) Unused electricity from solar-energy production can be sold back to PGE; the energy produced from the panels might eventually save money for LORAC and the City. Secondly, solar energy addresses the climate crisis, a top-of-mind concern that residents want the Council to tackle, as the survey showed. Some PARKS Board members suggested possible reasons to wait: incentives might be added or cost of solar panels might fall at a later time. She opined that the climate change issue is urgent and the time to act is now. Noting that Councilor Wendland, also at the PARKS Board meeting, had commented on the significant cost (half a million dollars) and the reality that it must come from somewhere; if used for solar panels, it could not be spent elsewhere. She reiterated the potential for recovering some of the costs of the solar panels. Emphasizing that it advances something valued highly by residents, she suggested they may also favor that in place of something that is valued less. She called on Council to defer their decision until a payback period is assessed and other factors have been weighed, keeping in mind the community's perception of the climate crisis as an emergency. • Dorothy Atwood Ms. Atwood, also a LOSN Board of Directors member, expressed appreciation for outreach by Parks and Recreation staff in November regarding LORAC, both to LOSN and the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB). While echoing Ms. Ganzini's observation that it came late in the process, staff had considered their suggestions thoroughly and thoughtfully, and incorporated some. She fully supports her colleague's comments on the additional solar panels on the roof. Unique financing options, she emphasized, are available for solar, including various grants. Living in a heavily-treed neighborhood, she would be precluded from solar on her own roof, but would participate and contribute willingly to a program for other roofs in the community; she is confident that others would feel the same. Also, on behalf of the LOSN, she asks that they be on record in full support of the SAB's February 28 memo to City Council and the Planning Commission. They support code revisions that will tighten the definition of remodel such that major teardowns in Lake Oswego would be required to adhere to requirements for demolition. Additionally, they encourage Council to consider deconstruction options, such as one enacted by the City of Portland that requires deconstruction for homes built before 1940. Valuable housing materials could thereby by reused and repurposed in order to achieve the materials' highest use and reduce amounts going to landfill. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 19 March 17, 2022 Written Public Comment is found in the meeting materials for Agenda Item 5. 5.1 PRIOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP No prior follow-up on prior Public Comment was provided. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 Ordinance 2884, An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Amending LOC Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) for the Purpose of Clarifying and Updating Various Provisions (2021); and, Adopting Findings (LU 21-0057). Mr. Boone advised that the matter before Council is a legislative decision and outlined applicable parameters. He reviewed the public hearing process as shown in the agenda, with related information. In response to his request for any City Council members needing to declare a financial conflict of interest, none were heard. Staff Report Mr. Fransted noted that the discussion would address the proposed 2021 Community Development Code (CDC) amendments, with this annual presentation taking place somewhat later than in prior years. The related Council Report (Ordinance 2884 -Amending the Community Development Code (LU 21-0057) identified the pertinent code sections (p 2-3/43). As illustrated in accompanying slides (Presentation — Ordinance 2884), the recommended amendments were related either to CDC maintenance or policy. Mr. Fransted first discussed the five maintenance amendments: (1.) Building design standards for commercial, industrial, and multi-family development: clarifying that the building is required to be complementary to like buildings; e.g., commercial to commercial, commercial to multi-family, but not to nearby single-family buildings. (2.) 180-day extension: deleting obsolete reference. (3.) Existing dwelling setback from access lane: adds language to expressly state the starting point for setback measurement from edge of the 20-foot easement. (4.) Conflicting Minor Variance standards: Inserts language to more specifically address variances from yard setbacks or the Oswego Lake setback with regard to preserving a tree. (5.) Definition of "Family": Removes a maximum-occupancy limit from the definition to comply with HB2583 that was to be effective January 1, 2022. Next, he outlined the proposed policy amendments: (1.) Expansion of Sunday hours for Saturday Market-type uses. Allowed hours of operation on Sundays would be 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. instead of the current 1:00 to 5:00. (2.)Two elements: Reduction of maximum size of boathouse from 560 to 500 square feet and revision of existing code to clarify applicability of setback requirements to boathouses. The Planning Commission recommendation is not to approve the first element; they found the difference to be inconsequential in terms of visibility and sightlines along the lake, while current standards afford sufficient space for storage without creating significantly-larger building mass. The second element of this amendment makes clear that side and rear yard setback requirements are not applicable to boathouses with the Oswego Lake setback, consistent with other references in the code. In response to a question from Mayor Buck, Mr. Fransted provided brief background on the Lake Corporation's policy and administration regarding boathouse size. Resuming with the policy amendments: (3.) Clarification of the Commercial, Industrial, and Multi- family Building Design standards as they pertain to a new building being added to a multi-building site. This amendment would clarify the requirement for a design that is either complementary to City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 19 March 17, 2022 all adjacent buildings of good design or is integrated to the site itself. In response to Councilor Wendland's request for an example of how this would apply to an actual case, Mr. Fransted discussed the most recent case, an affordable-housing project on the Marylhurst campus. Mr. Boone suggested that a less complex example would be where a new commercial building was being added to a multi-building site not subject to an overall development plan; the concept was for the new building to be complementary to the buildings already existing on that site. He addressed other scenarios raised by Councilors Wendland and Manz, indicating that this amendment clarifies the issue relative to a multi-building site and does not apply directly to these examples. Mr. Fransted addressed the remaining policy amendments: 4.) Option for online neighborhood meetings that are required for land use development applications: Allowing the applicant to hold an online neighborhood meeting, subject to approval of the neighborhood association (NA) chair, has been found beneficial to applicants and NAs. Mayor Buck inquired about a situation not involving a NA, and Mr. Fransted advised that the City was required to work with the closest abutting NA. (5.) Provision of online and in-person public meetings of the pertinent governing bodies. Based on requirements of HB2560, in the context of Chapter 50 this includes both the Planning Commission and Development Review Commission (DRC). It requires both commissions to hold meetings that are accessible remotely through technological means: telephone, video or other electronic virtual means. Also, the opportunity must be provided for members of the general public to submit oral and written testimony remotely. These requirements could be met through a "hybrid" meeting format. With approval of the amendment, the current code language specifying that meetings be held in person would be removed. Additionally, written submittals of evidence and requests for public meeting log-in information would be required by noon on the day of a public hearing; submission of in-person written materials at the hearing itself would be prohibited because of logistical limitations of staff conducting the hybrid meeting and commission members hearing oral testimony concurrently. However, he advised that any person wishing to submit such materials could request a mandatory continuance of initial evidentiary hearing to submit additional written materials, and that request would be granted. Mr. Fransted and Mr. Boone provided clarification to follow-up questions posed by Mayor Buck. In concluding, Mr. Fransted advised that the Planning Commission recommendation was the adoption of Ordinance 2884 as proposed, with exclusion of the limitation on houseboat size as noted in the Council Report (p 2-3). Staff recommends that Council tentatively approve LU 21- 0057 as recommended by the Planning Commission and direct staff to return on April 5th with a written version of the Ordinance, including findings and conclusions. Testimony Mayor Buck opened the public hearing and called for testimony. • Carole Ockert, Neighborhood Association Chairs Committee and First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN/Forest Hills NA) Ms. Ockert provided print copies of a written handout (Public Testimony— Carole Ockert, p 2-4) to Council members. She noted that her testimony represents both the neighborhood chairs committee and the FAN/Forest Hills NA. Their hope is that this approach will better utilize Council's time than hearing testimony from multiple persons supporting the same position. She first addressed Maintenance Item 1, in which staff had asked that Council interpret the code section to mean that development on sites with three or more attached multi-family, public or commercial units does not have to be complementary in terms of design to the surrounding neighborhood. She and her colleagues believe that these building types, when set inside a City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 19 March 17, 2022 neighborhood, have been and should continue to be complementary in design to the neighborhood. As corroborated by the City's 2021 survey and Council's investment in it, character is a strong value in neighborhoods across the community. She cited examples of this commitment in City buildings that have been designed specifically to fit in their neighborhood settings, including the Adult Community Center and the Library. A proposed restroom at Woodmont Park was not designed to complement existing family homes; when concerns were heard from nearby Forest Highlands residents, it was not built. Reiterating the need for design "complementary to single- family" to remain in code interpretation, she emphasized that such design will support her colleagues' desire for new multi-family projects that become part of the neighborhoods in which they are sited. Council, as the final precedent-setting body, is asked not to remove this element that supports the unique character of all neighborhoods. She then drew Council's attention to their other concern, relating to Maintenance Item 5: While the new definition of Family proposed by staff removes problematic language now disallowed by the State, it also removes the existing code's upper bound on the number of unrelated people who may occupy a dwelling unit, i.e., five. She discussed the example of a successful arrangement where four unrelated individuals rented a house for several years in her neighborhood; without that upper limit of five, negative impacts on the neighborhood would have been likely. In her research of jurisdictions elsewhere in the country, she reported that where terminology related to familial had been replaced with single housekeeping unit, problems were consistently seen because of a lack of clarity about the meaning of that term. Council was asked to see examples of language to address that issue, as found in her handout. She emphasized the need for the community to care about and safeguard a baseline standard of living for all community members. It is neither optimal nor necessary to adopt this amendment now. Therefore, she asked that Council pause the adoption of this item until staff has provided an appropriate definition for single housekeeping unit. This can be done in practical terms to drive a good outcome. Hearing no further requests to present testimony, Mayor Buck closed the public hearing. He called Mr. Fransted forward to respond to additional questions from Council members. Councilor Verdick noted that good points were raised in public comments about excluding consideration of complementary design in relation to nearby single-family residential buildings (Maintenance Item 1). She asked if other portions of the code would address this. Mr. Fransted reviewed the code text showing the full standard and the actual proposed revisions (Council Report, Attachment 2, p 7/43). He emphasized the range of considerations beyond the building design itself; they included preservation of existing buildings on the site, streets, paths, accessibility, materials, setbacks, and overall proportions. In related discussion, he affirmed that other requirements within the zone would still apply, hence limiting the possibility of a new structure that would be out of character with nearby single-family zones. She believes this is Ms. Ockert's primary concern with the amendment, and Councilor Verdick wants to be sure that it does not leave a code loophole allowing for a design that is drastically out of character. Councilor Wendland voiced similar concerns. Councilor Verdick asked about the basis of comparison if a building would be surrounded completely by single-family residential. Mr. Fransted advised that this code section would not be applicable, but the rest of the building design standards would be. Citing the new LORAC building as another example, Councilor Wendland asked how its design would be assessed, i.e., to what surrounding structures must it be complementary? In ensuing discussion, Mr. Fransted explained that, with adoption of this amendment, the LORAC building would not be required to be complementary to the single-family dwellings, but would be required to integrate with the remaining buildings on site. Mr. Boone affirmed that the example of LORAC as compared to the Palisades neighborhood as a whole is not applicable; this is because the word adiacent is defined as that which is abutting or across the street. Expressing some concern about LORAC's compatibility with adjacent mid-1970s houses along the golf course perimeter, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 19 March 17, 2022 Councilor Wendland indicated he could support the amendment. His priority is to ensure that a new building is designed with consideration for what is already there. It is important to continue preserving the unique character of neighborhoods, while supporting commercial development projects. Councilor Manz noted the unique character of the neighborhoods, shaped by specific design standards in some cases; in others, commercial structures of a particular era may have been added to a neighborhood of older single-family houses. She does not perceive a problem with the amendment and suggests that Council may be overthinking it. Mr. Fransted observed that he rarely encounters a proposed building under this code section that will be placed solely among single-family houses. Instead, there have generally been adjacent commercial or multi-family buildings on which to base a complementary assessment. Councilor Mboup requested that Ms. Ockert be called to clarify her concerns about the proposed amendment to this code section (LOC 50.06.001.5.b.i), identifying the source of her fears that it would interfere with neighborhood character. Ms. Ockert noted that this amendment pertains to design of multi-family buildings, in addition to commercial and industrial. Multi-family buildings currently consist of three or more units, often seen in residential neighborhoods. A code change is being contemplated to change that to five units. Also, a bill enacted by the State legislature makes it possible to use public facility sites and churches for multi-family housing, with a more constrained public process that offers reduced opportunity for input. She emphasized her belief that considering addition of multi-family housing to neighborhoods is a good thing. Having those structures fit in well is very important and deserves the same attention to design as is given to single-family houses; both are valuable. Good-quality multi-family housing is key, and therefore she does not want to weaken the code by removing language that requires it to fit in with surrounding neighborhoods. As she believes this will be an issue seen more and more, she wants the code to provide the means of dealing with it. Councilor Mboup moved to tentatively approve Ordinance 2884 and direct staff to return on April 5th, 2022, with a final version of the Ordinance, including Findings and Conclusions, for LU 21-0057. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. Councilor Wendland requested clarification of the terminology changes proposed to comply with HB2583, which abolishes occupancy limits on either a familial or nonfamilial basis (Maintenance Item 5). Mr. Boone explained that the City's current code does require that no more than five persons and their related family members may occupy a single-family dwelling; this is based on a definition of family identifying the related family members as those who are spouses or children of the five persons. As such, it is not an effective control on number of occupants, either. For purposes of land use, the State statute has pre-empted other local building code limitations or provisions. Therefore, the City will not be enforcing the current definition of family. Responding to additional concerns expressed by Councilor Wendland, Mr. Boone read aloud from the statute: "The maximum occupancy limit may not be established or enforced by any local government for any residential dwelling unit if the restriction is based on familial or nonfamilial relationships among any occupants." It is unequivocally clear, he indicated. Councilor Wendland questioned the wisdom of the legislature's decision for local governments, suggesting that the City explore additional restrictions that might be possible to preclude large numbers of occupants in single housekeeping units. Mr. Boone advised that the amendment does not prohibit restrictions that are directly targeting impacts of the increased occupancy. It becomes more direct when the concern is a parking or noise problem, for example, where the City has ordinances to address those direct impacts. It requires more enforcement on the direct impacts than the perceived indirect impacts that might result from increased occupancy. As to other means of control afforded City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 19 March 17, 2022 by code, he suggested that areas other than land use, e.g., noise and nuisance sections and parking restrictions, might prove more useful. Councilor Wendland urged the community to understand that Council adoption of this amendment would not leave the City without means of addressing related issues. Mr. Boone acknowledged the question raised by Ms. Ockert: How would the term single housekeeping unit be interpreted? The challenge of that question exists in the current code and will carry forward, he indicated. Councilor Manz opined that the City has a very robust code for addressing municipal violations. She considers the proposed language for this amendment to be fine, the product of excellent work by staff. As resident of an eclectic neighborhood with numerous rental houses, she is perhaps less worried than Councilor Wendland, having observed changes there over the years. In relation to the single housekeeping unit, Councilor Nguyen pointed out that, as community living patterns continue to change, multi-generational housing will likely continue to increase. In considering future needs for his parents and in-laws, for example, he has looked at housing that could accommodate them and live-in caretakers. In this and other multi-generational situations, the total number of residents might well exceed five. There are important benefits to having relatives of different ages in a household. He asked that Council be conscious of this when discussing the topic of five or more people living together, including some who may not have familial ties. It should not be assumed that it is incompatible with a neighborhood's character. A roll call vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Verdick, Manz, Mboup, Wendland, and Nguyen voting `aye'. (6-0) 6.2 Ordinance 2890, An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Clarifying, Revising, and Updating LOC 38.18.305, 38.20.310, 38.20.315 (Sewer Connection), LOC 38.25.140, 38.25.100, 38.25.140, 38.25.180 and 38.25.190 (Stormwater Facility Maintenance), LOC 47.10.415 and 47.10.425 (Sign Code); and Amendments to Various Sections Removing Gender Pronouns and Updating Reference to Persons with Disabilities. Mr. Boone advised that the matter before Council is a legislative decision. He reviewed the public hearing process as shown in the agenda, with related information. In response to his request for any City Council members needing to declare a financial conflict of interest, none were heard. Staff Report As indicated in the Council Report (Ordinance 2890, Clarifying, Revising, and Updating the Lake Oswego Code), Mr. Boone noted that the City Attorney's Office assists City departments with annual code amendments to improve and clarify the code and to ensure current statutory compliance. The amendments now before Council are those addressing code other than Chapter 50, which pertains to land use regulation and is subject to a different hearings process. In this public hearing, proposed amendments relate to (1) sewer connection requirements and acceptable alternative systems, (2) stormwater management facility requirements, and (3) clarifications to the sign code. Additionally, staff has reviewed the code to remove some gender pronoun references and to update language relating to persons with disabilities. Staff members of the Engineering and Planning departments will be available to address substantive matters. Testimony Mayor Buck opened the public hearing and called for testimony. Hearing no requests to testify, he closed the public hearing. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 19 March 17, 2022 Councilor Manz moved to enact Ordinance 2890 clarifying, revising, and updating the Lake Oswego Code. Councilor Mboup seconded the motion. Councilor Wendland asked if any of the proposed amendments could be considered controversial or instead are largely matters of housekeeping. Mr. Boone indicated that, while all might be deemed housekeeping, the biggest issue concerns the sewer connection requirements. Those have been most confusing, with questions about when to connect, when the exemption for connection is required, and what alternative systems are available. The amendments commentary (Attachment 1 to the Council Report) provides additional detail. After touching briefly on the topic, he confirmed that it had required the most clarification effort, but as a whole, the amendments could be characterized as housekeeping. A roll call vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Buck and Councilors Verdick, Manz, Mboup, Wendland, and Nguyen voting `aye'. (6-0) 7. STUDY SESSIONS 7.1 Residential Demolition and Nonconforming Development Mr. Siegel noted that the study session follows work of the Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee, which considered various policy issues and potential strategies for integrating middle housing into Lake Oswego neighborhoods. The examination included strategies that might help to retain some existing housing stock as a means of converting existing homes to middle housing. As discussed in the Council Report (Residential Demolition and Nonconforming Development), staff has been tracking the issue for some time, as well; their focus has been on the current City policy and process concerning demolitions, along with opportunities for related process improvement. Describing the format of the study session, he discussed three issues on which staff hoped to receive Council's direction, as illustrated with accompanying slides (Presentation — Demolition and Nonconforming Development). He noted that the topic of demolition is complex, and suggested a focus on three areas of inquiry: (1)the definition of demolition; (2)the significant related issue of nonconforming development, which should be coordinated in some way with the definition of demolition; and (3) whether or not to extend the tax on residential demolitions that will sunset on January 1, 2023. Continuing with the slide presentation, Mr. Don discussed the definition of demolition, based on any one of three conditions. After showing photographs of projects considered to be remodels under current code, he acknowledged that many people would likely perceive them instead as new houses. In responding to questions from Mayor Buck and Councilor Nguyen, he opined that one advantage of the remodel over demolition was avoidance of the demolition tax. Mr. Siegel suggested that property owners' incentives for a remodel are most likely avoidance of the tax and, more significantly, ability to maintain their nonconforming development entitlements. Mr. Don and Mr. Siegel addressed questions from Mayor Buck and Councilor Wendland about specific concerns, e.g., a much larger house and/or insufficient setbacks that might be allowed for a remodel under current code. Mr. Don next differentiated the effects of demolition and remodel in five categories. Under current code, for demolition the $15,000 demolition fee applies, with a $5,000 credit available if the structure is deconstructed, and a courtesy notice to neighbors and State "hazmat" certification are required; nonconforming development rights are discontinued. With a remodel, neither the demolition tax, the related deconstruction credit nor the notification to neighbors is applicable; "hazmat" certification is required for buildings constructed prior to 2004; nonconforming development rights continue, subject to certain conditions. He noted that the required amount of the existing residence that must remain may be minimal, e.g., one City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 19 March 17, 2022 wall. Lastly, Mr. Don reviewed other requirements that apply to both demolitions and remodels: historic preservation for designated landmarks, erosion-control and tree-removal permits, and a tree-protection plan. Councilor Wendland questioned the limited extent of the differences between requirements for replacement of a demolished house versus a remodel. Mr. Don indicated that other aspects of regulation might apply to both, and Mr. Siegel advised a complete list of the differences could be shown for the building, fire, zoning and other pertinent code sections. Ms. Numanoglu discussed nonconforming development, a section of Chapter 50 of the City's code, and its relationship to the demolition tax. While the definition of demolition will determine whether or not a demolition tax applies, nonconforming development is often a factor when a builder or developer retains a portion of the dwelling. In such situations, this may be a way to avoid the demolition tax, but it also may be a way to maintain some existing nonconformities that are advantageous. Nonconforming development, she explained, is development that was legal when the structure was originally built, but due to either a subsequent code change or to the property's annexation to the City from the County or other jurisdiction, it does not comply with Lake Oswego's current regulations. The number of these nonconformities may be greater than in other communities, she suggested, because the City had adopted infill standards in the early 2000s to address concerns about the bulk, scale, and character of new development in existing neighborhoods. These new standards added a number of measures, including floor area maximums, front yard and side yard setback planes, and garage appearance. Each time a standard is adopted or code is changed, there is the possibility of a ripple effect that then makes existing development nonconforming. The purpose of the code, which is generous in terms of nonconformities, is to allow property owners to retain those nonconformities. Eventually, with voluntary demolition, the City will see compliance, whether it be a part or the entirety of the dwelling. Next, she outlined four basic situations in which the City's nonconforming standards can be met: (1) Continuance, in which the dwelling is not altered in any way, as long as it remains viable as a structure. (2) Basic maintenance, which allows new roofing or siding, paint, a new window, and other such changes or repairs. Structural changes are not allowed, precluding teardown and rebuilding of a structural wall, for example. (3)Additions, where the nonconforming portion of the dwelling may be retained, so long as the addition complies fully with current regulations. (4) Change to roof pitch, allowing up to a 6-foot increase in height, subject to base height of the zone. This addressed a concern about maintenance of flat roofs on garages, particularly those located at or in a front setback, offering some flexibility with the nonconforming structure. Additionally, a structure damaged by a cause other than an intentional act can be reconstructed to the extent that the previous structure was nonconforming. However, if damaged intentionally, e.g., through partial or full demolition, any rebuilding must conform fully to current regulations. She discussed how this would apply to a specific example, also to be seen later in the study session. Finally, she offered three perspectives for Council to consider in terms of nonconformities. First, the perspective of the neighborhood: An example of a remodel where only one or two walls were left standing, within a setback, was cited. Neighbors would understandably not find it recognizable as the prior structure and would perceive that the owner was getting a new dwelling. Neighbors also might believe that it should comply fully with current code, because they now would have to live with those nonconforming setbacks for a much longer period of time because the house is essentially a rebuild. The second perspective relates to the review of incoming plans by Planning staff. As upcoming examples would show, review of plans is extremely complicated. It is very difficult for staff to identify sources of potential mistakes on these plans; for example, there is no standard way to show where walls are being retained. Lastly, from the applicant's perspective: It is common to hear from an applicant, for example, that two walls will be retained so that existing setbacks can be kept. After the entire house has been redesigned, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 19 March 17, 2022 upon starting removal of necessary portions, they may discover that those two walls cannot be retained after all, perhaps because they lack proper footings or dry rot is present. This may be very costly to the applicant, who either will have to redesign the project or have to stop and seek a variance. With demolition, the structure must comply fully with current standards. These situations have occurred, along with others where walls were to be retained: perhaps a contractor demolishes a wall through an error by deeming it not worth saving. Again, this can be costly to the applicant. Ms. Numanoglu and Mr. Boone responded to questions from Councilor Wendland regarding continued validity of an existing variance, approved perhaps five or 10 years ago, if they now do a remodel, as opposed to a demolition. Mr. Boone indicated that it depends on the nature of the variance and discussed several scenarios. Councilor Wendland expressed concern that the City understand the core reasons that contractors and developers seek alternatives to the rules and their associated outcomes; this will enable the optimum code to be written, with all parties relatively happy. In response to his additional questions, Mr. Boone and Ms. Numanoglu discussed other scenarios and distinctions based on type of variance involved. Prior to presentation of the examples by Ms. Morey-Collins, Mr. Siegel made Council aware of one issue explored by the workgroup formed in February (Council Report, p 3) and then by the Planning Commission: If the Council decides to recalibrate the definition of demolition such that more than the one wall is left standing but not the entire shell of the building, what might that be? Different metrics were considered, e.g., a percentage of the exterior wall area or floor area retained or some combination of the two. Ms. Morey-Collins noted that her work involves reviewing plans for compliance with planning and zoning standards. Continuing the slide presentation, she drew Council's attention to images illustrating representative examples seen in recent months related to the study session topics. She discussed plan documents for three major remodels; these included comparison of existing versus proposed new footprints, foundation plans, floor plans, demolition plans, elevations, and building envelopes. Starting with a remodel discussed by Mr. Don earlier that had shown only one remaining wall and partial foundation, she reviewed each example and emphasized that retention of existing nonconformities was key to the proposed plans. In one instance, she expressed frustration as a planner: While the proposed plan showed one nonconformity that had been brought into compliance, it did nothing to improve compliance on the others. Responding to questions from Councilor Wendland, she provided additional details. Next, she outlined key issues in terms of plan review: (1) No demolition plan is currently required, causing extra legwork for Planning staff. (2) Existing elevations are not often provided and must be obtained to enable staff to compare existing and proposed structures in terms of nonconformities. (3) Planners sometimes find it difficult to differentiate existing versus new elements so as to confirm actual legal nonconformity. For this reason, staff is considering the need for an inspection in cases like the examples, i.e., where an existing nonconforming structure is being remodeled. This will allow staff to ensure that the portions proposed to remain are indeed being retained. Timing challenges will be posed for staff, who will need to see that the inspection occurs after deconstruction but before the new build begins; this would involve coordinating Engineering and Building department staff, for example, where their perspective is needed. Mr. Siegel asked Council to focus specifically on the issue of nonconforming development and the workgroup's consensus that, if demolition was to be redefined, the threshold should be based on some objective metric, as noted earlier. This should be something that could be measured by a person in Ms. Morey-Collins' position. The group had reviewed how it is done in other City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 19 March 17, 2022 jurisdictions, where the approach involves reduction of value of the structure. After consideration of various factors, the workgroup concluded that this methodology was not the best choice for Lake Oswego and the more objective measure, such as surface area of walls or floor area, is preferable. These and other recommendations of the workgroup were provided (Presentation, p 28/31). He recapped some of the staff observations that the Council may wish to consider: (1) Neighbors have perceived a number of times that a remodel is actually a demolition and complete replacement of a dwelling; at the least, consideration should be given to requiring a notice to neighbors because of the inconvenience of a demolition. (2) For purposes of the demolition tax decision, it would be appropriate to redefine or recalibrate the definition of demolition. (3) The question of nonconforming development involves a different kind of analysis as it is a matter of both property rights and, in some ways, tradeoffs for a design and neighborhood character. Citing cases in point, he noted that impacts could relate to tree removal and proximity to neighbors, among others. In addition to these issues, he advised Council that he considers the administrative perspective to be valid. Along with efficient and timely turnaround on permits, a change in the rules, particularly regarding nonconforming development and inspections, will require thoughtful review; in essence, what burden of proof must be established to demonstrate that the walls to be retained are in fact structurally sound? Regardless of a decision by Council to revise the code, staff hopes to improve processes and customer service. In addition to these consensus points of the workgroup, the Planning Commission had met recently for a study session. They recognized the sense of urgency, especially concerning the definition of demolition. Considering the complicated issues involved, the Commission recognized the potential for unintended consequences and, therefore, the importance of taking time to study this thoroughly. They wish to see more examples from other cities, including those considering a tiered approach that might better serve owners of smaller properties, who currently pay the same demolition tax as owners of much larger houses. The Commission is prepared to work on this, focusing on nonconforming development, at Council's direction; they recognize that the tax itself is a budgetary, rather than land use matter, and therefore under the Council's purview. Recapping the list of considerations, he called for any questions, feedback or direction from Council. Mayor Buck asked Council members to consider the three questions individually. Should the definition of demolition in the building code (LOC 45.12.100) be amended? His perception is that Council's consensus is to revise the definition in a way that provides administrative relief and streamlining, but also provides for noticing and the demolition tax and is more congruent with what people see on the ground. He hopes the process can preserve more existing structures and encourage more remodeling; however, he wonders if those goals might be in conflict with the City's desire to bring more structures into compliance with current code. Mr. Siegel acknowledged that might be the case, hence the need to set an appropriate threshold. The workgroup had considered retention of at least 50%, though had not deliberated fully. As shown in the sample code amendments (Council Report, Attachment A, p 7-15/30), two alternatives had been discussed. As the 50% threshold had some precedents, he suggested that staff might use that as a starting point, subject to further study and Council direction. Mayor Buck described a scenario in which the owner of an older structure that fit well into the neighborhood might wish to replace deteriorating walls, while retaining all or most of the current footprint and landscape. In ensuing discussion, Councilors challenged the viability of this scenario in the context of both a remodel and a demolition. Councilor Wendland indicated that the larger issue is to define how the owner and/or developer might seek to use the system to their advantage under either definition, i.e., demolition or remodel. Touching on potential consequences related to property taxes, Mr. Siegel advised that valuation data, among other questions, could be City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 19 March 17, 2022 explored further by staff. Councilor Wendland affirmed his interest in finding a reasonable threshold, perhaps greater than 50% but less than 80%, but not allowing only one wall to remain. Councilor Mboup cited a definition of demolition, asserting that no serious person could regard the retention of only one wall to be anything but a demolition. The percentage methodology also would be problematic, as simply leaving a foundation and some walls in place would not resolve neighbors' perceptions of a demolition. Setting clear standards in order to make staff's work straightforward is essential. Additionally, he emphasized that what is clearly a demolition and rebuild must be at the developer's cost. That cost should be higher; the $15,000 tax is inconsequential to developers; nonconforming aspects may be the greater issue for them. He opined that it should be hard to demolish a house as compared to preserving it, as Ms. Ockert advocated. While acknowledging the complexity of the issue, Councilor Manz favored a percentage metric because of its suitability with computer systems and planning for the future. Staff should research further with other cities and return to Council with recommended percentages, based on best practices and examples. She is convinced the definition needs to be improved. Councilor Nguyen expressed support for the numeric standard as an element, but believes consideration of intent needs to be included in the process. Along with the percentage of original structure retained, some method, e.g., a decision tree, must be used to determine whether the proposed structure is an improvement of the one now being used or if instead it is a completely different type of house. Staff should be asked to explore both topics with other jurisdictions. The percentage threshold is the bare-minimum standard, but should be augmented by a way to capture intent. Is a loophole being sought or is the intent to preserve character of the neighborhood? His view is that a remodel seeks to preserve and make better, as compared to demolishing to make new. Mayor Buck advocated confining the standard to the objective numerical value instead of including subjective factors; Councilor Nguyen noted the numeric standard can be the baseline, but Council should rely on staff to identify & assess intent, as well. Councilor Wendland indicated that it was imperative for staff to identify a way for calculating a percentage. He emphasized Lake Oswego's active and engaged community, with their strong concerns for property rights. An intent-based calculation does not seem conceivable, in his view. Mr. Siegel responded to his questions about city statistics comparing quantity of demolitions versus remodels and demolitions tax data. Councilor Wendland reiterated the importance of nonconformance rights to owners, something the City must factor into changes. Councilor Nguyen asked to clarify his meaning in relation to intent, as it relates to the preservation of those rights in certain circumstances. Mayor Buck suggested that this be deferred to Council's discussion of the next question. Councilor Manz asked if Council's discussion of the demolition definition and giving consideration to encouraging remodeling raised any issues that might conflict with HB2001. Mr. Siegel indicated he has no concerns as to the question of demolitions. Should the City change how nonconforming development is regulated (LOC 50.01.006)? Mayor Buck turned to Councilor Nguyen's question: Assuming now that there was a new definition of demolition in place, there might be nonconforming aspects of the existing house that an owner wishes to maintain for a purpose such as tree preservation; how might the code address this? Mr. Siegel advised that staff would need to explore this, identifying the tradeoffs for allowing continuation of nonconforming development. The intent would be to afford maximum flexibility for people to remodel such that they can save a tree or otherwise have a development that is more compatible with the existing surroundings. An adjacent neighbor, he noted, might prefer to have a nonconformity corrected, but the Council seemed inclined toward a standard that would require City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 19 March 17, 2022 retaining more of the structure in order to maintain the nonconformance right. The question for Council would be: What are the values and, to Councilor Nguyen's point, what is the intent? In ensuing discussion, he noted possible approaches that would involve considering the definition(s) and nonconforming development separately, but also exploring their interrelationships. Councilor Verdick expressed opposition to the kind of development, deemed remodels, seen in the examples. These showed only one piece of a structure being retained, specifically because that piece was nonconforming. Councilor Wendland expressed concern about potential consequences for property owners in terms of their nonconformance rights. Councilor Verdick emphasized that the current code, which allows for retention of perhaps one wall and building of a whole new structure, does not sit well with her. In summarizing, Mr. Siegel advised that staff would return after further study, bringing some options and examples. They would also try to align the demolition definition and nonconforming development in some way. The intent would be an outcome that, from a neighbor's perspective, is recognizable as a remodel of the current structure rather than a demolition. The existing nonconforming development rights would be afforded because the property owner has retained at least a specified percentage of the structure, with that amount yet to be determined. If that percentage is not met, the nonconforming rights are lost. Should the demolitions tax sunset (LOC 24.06)? Mayor Buck opined that the tax should be extended or made permanent. The amount of the tax should be reviewed, so that it would better encourage remodels and reduce the number of demolitions. The purpose of the tax should also be considered. It was intended to stem the demolition of many of the community's smaller but completely-habitable houses, which are affordable, relatively speaking. Instead, such houses are being demolished and often replaced by one $2.5 million-plus house. A second concern is that the tax monies are directed to Parks maintenance; he favors considering how to direct the tax amounts more toward a housing-related purpose. He acknowledged the latter point would be a subject for separate discussion, as would be the apparent ineffectiveness of the $5,000 deconstruction incentive, noted by Councilor Verdick. Councilor Nguyen endorsed the idea of directing these tax monies to creating more affordable housing, rather than to Parks. However, he recalled that use of the funds was restricted in some way. As explained by Councilor Wendland, these funds were designated for Parks because of the small number of lots in the city available for development. As a consequence, the amount of Systems Development Charges that would normally be directed to Parks was insufficient.A high priority of residents is additional parks and recreation projects, hence the demolition tax goes to Parks. He cautioned that many citizens would convey concern about the importance of parks maintenance if this funding changed. In additional comments, he discussed the composition and effects of assessed values of real estate. In terms of the City budget, an important component is construction activity that creates more assessed value; it compounds annually with the annual 3% increase in tax revenues. He asked his colleagues to keep this in mind as an important factor in paying for desired projects, and also throughout the discussions of demolition tax and other potential changes. Council should ask: Are we going to create a disincentive for construction activity in Lake Oswego? He did not necessarily want that outcome. Councilor Manz contended that this is market-driven; Councilor Wendland concurred, but stated that the City should not"handcuff"the market. Councilor Manz discussed her observations in a neighborhood of generally smaller properties, where houses are often owned by families and rented out. Alternatively, they may remodel and then "flip" the house for a profit. This does not constrain those owners, whom she believes have done a genuine remodel of old housing stock and have deservedly made a profit. Mr. Siegel indicated that staff now has a sense of Council's wishes regarding the demolition tax. He discussed a prospective timeline for deciding in favor of extension or sunset before the end of City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 19 March 17, 2022 2022. Among those he wishes to consult are his builders' advisory group, which may offer input on unintended consequences that could be created with changes to the tax, e.g., the amount of the tax is too high, possibly dampening the market; other changes might induce people to build larger homes or have other consequences. Mayor Buck noted that the replacement of more-affordable homes with homes affordable only for an extremely small percentage of the population highlights the need for greater investment in affordable housing in the city. As heard at the National League of Cities conference, this is an issue across the country, but heightened in a city like Lake Oswego, where land and houses are so expensive. As people continue to be priced out of the community, he believes Council needs to consider this because housing people is very important. Councilor Manz suggested that the Planning Commission neighborhood tours coming up in the next couple of months may be of interest to Council members. The format offers an opportunity to get a sense of the housing stock and other characteristics of various neighborhoods. Mr. Siegel suggested that the Planning Commission, as they continue their work on HB2001, will need to have guidance on how the nonconforming development issue should be prioritized in relation to their other work, including the Palisades neighborhood overlay. In the meantime, staff would be returning with proposed language for a new definition of demolition, to be scheduled with the City Manager. Mayor Buck noted that Council hoped to address the definition as soon as possible. After that, the nonconforming development should be dealt with by the Commission as quickly as possible,while allowing them adequate time for related discussion and consideration of public input; this issue should be prioritized ahead of the neighborhood overlay. He expressed Council's appreciation for the team's presentation. 7.2 Lake Oswego Recreation and Aquatics Center Sustainability Mr. Anderholm noted that Ms. Marsicek would be presenting the full range of sustainability and resiliency measures being taken in the design process for LORAC. Both SAB and LOSN had participated in two separate charrettes with the design team, where they provided some input that has been incorporated effectively in the design. As the design work is ongoing, he highlighted two points of inconsistency between Ms. Marsicek's presentation and the Council Report (Recreation and Aquatics Center Sustainability): (1) Energy consumption estimated for the heat pump rooftop units is now updated to reflect reduced annual usage. (2) Regarding the State's 1.5% Green Energy Technology requirement, assumptions about the solar photovoltaic (PV) array costs, number of panels, and kW output have been revised, as Ms. Marsicek would explain. With accompanying slides, (Presentation — Recreation and Aquatics Center Sustainability) Ms. Marsicek began by recapping the two charrettes. Aspects of sustainability beyond systems- based features were identified, including the facility in relation to the community's overall goals, e.g., being adaptive and flexible and serving as a community hub. Elements of the City's Sustainability and Climate Action Plan were noted as being reflected in the subsequent slides. She highlighted key aspects of the project, referring to bulleted items on several slides and providing clarifications as requested. (1) Site Plan (p 4/14), including minimized cut-and-fill excavation, with utilization of excess earth on the golf course; stormwater treatment on the entire site prior to entry into the City system; parking accommodations for motor vehicles, including overflow parking on adjacent Parks and School District properties, designed to control impacts on the neighborhood, plus spaces for bicycles on site; plant selection and landscape designed for low maintenance, including many native species; and full-cutoff lighting to control light trespass City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 19 March 17, 2022 beyond boundaries of the site. The (2) Building Plan (p 7/14), consisting of aquatics and "dry side" (gymnasium, maintenance, entrance, etc.) areas, incorporating mechanical heating, cooling, and ventilation systems to deliver the best combination of reliability, reduced first costs, energy efficiency, reduced maintenance, and optimized comfort for occupants. Key systems for the natatorium and other recreation spaces were noted, along with reduced water usage to be achieved with use of low-flow fixtures and sensor-operated devices where appropriate. Systems are designed for increased outdoor air ventilation, so as to achieve 30% more than code minimum. In addition, alternate systems and strategies are under consideration: (a) Heat pumps as an alternative to the planned rooftop equipment, utilizing natural gas for heating and cooling; this would eliminate gas usage for about 50% of the building. The tradeoff would be slightly increased maintenance costs and shorter life cycle for heat pumps; however, despite slightly higher electricity usage, actual savings over time would be 7% better than a gas-fired unit. (b) Building commissioning is being studied. This process offers opportunities for reducing long-term energy use, operating costs, and contractor callbacks, while improving building documentation and enhancing occupant comfort. The testing and modeling now underway is being done because the City will want to ensure that the building is working as intended. (c) Electrical systems and renewable energy (p 8/14): The project target is 46% better than the 2019 updated (ASHRAE) industry standard and approximately 20% savings beyond Oregon code. The design includes an optimized envelope for cost-effective performance of glazing, walls, and roof; heat recovery at the dehumidification units; LED lighting throughout the building, controlled largely based on occupancy; daylight provided throughout the building via windows and skylights; demand-control ventilation; heating of pool water, which comprises about 60%of the entire facility's energy usage, with condensing boilers to minimize energy use and annual costs. The project meets the State's requirement of 1.5% for Green Energy Technology through the solar PV array on the natatorium roof; these panels will provide up to 3% of the building energy usage, and an increased number of panels is being considered, as well. (d) Building construction and materials (p 11/14): As with the pool shells, low-carbon concrete is emphasized; building design and material selection is focused on long-term durability, maintenance considerations, and low or no VOC emissions; exterior materials include concrete masonry, storefront glazing, and metal panel. Interior materials include polished and broom-finished concrete floors and tile, offering durability, maintenance, and safety. Selections are continuing, with a preference for recycled content and local materials, where possible, and sustainability certifications in mind. Acoustics options and levels of treatment are focused on reducing sound trespass in all areas. Alternate strategies being considered are: "bird-safe" glass above 12-foot height with an etched pattern to avert bird strikes and increased acoustics. An additional slide showed selections made to date for paint, flooring, laminates, lockers, etc., and related certifications (p 12/14). Finally, Building Resiliency (p 13/14) was addressed, highlighted by portions of the building designed to Risk Category IV, i.e.,for immediate occupancy following a major seismic event. These include the "dry-side" recreation spaces, such as the gymnasium and fitness rooms, lobby, and also administrative offices. A portion of the outlets and lighting in these areas will be equipped for emergency backup power served by a portable generator. The building can serve as a temporary place of refuge, but not as an essential facility or emergency shelter. Next, she responded to Council comments and questions. Mayor Buck noted the useful input of the LOSN regarding payback period for a full PV array and potential opportunities for community grants. Ms. Marsicek advised that the six-year payback on the array had been calculated much earlier in the process, based on the 1.5% version; the calculation will now be requested for the full array. Mayor Buck expressed strong support for solar and reduced energy use. These and other features have been planned through a valuable process, in compliance with the City's Climate Action Plan, he understands. Ms. Marsicek affirmed that, and Mr. Anderholm noted it City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 19 March 17, 2022 advances the ultimate goal of net-zero emission by 2045. In response to Mayor Buck's questions about the source of furniture for the building, Mr. Anderholm described plans for furnishing various areas, including both repurposed pieces owned by the City and new purchases. The bulk of the furniture, fixture, and equipment expense, he indicated, is focused on interactive equipment for use by the public. In response to the Mayor's concern that any vendor utilizing forced labor be avoided, Mr. Anderholm explained that Herman Miller is the vendor currently involved; the firm has supplied furniture for the new City Hall and for most other municipal buildings. Councilor Wendland commended Ms. Marsicek and the ScottlEdwards Architecture team for their work on the project; bringing together the wide range of groups and opinions in the community, including those of the City, School District, pool and other recreation users, has been a significant part of the process. The team's focus on listening and adjusting will produce the best possible outcome, he expects. A question that the City and the Council should answer is whether or not this facility, in terms of emergency preparedness, should be a community center for gathering and, if so, how much additional expense would be involved in meeting the next seismic risk level above the planned Category IV? Ms. Marsicek advised that the "dry side" of the structure is being built to the voluntary Category IV, the level meant for immediate occupancy following a large seismic event. Mr. Anderholm provided additional details in relation to the City's overall emergency management program, including its proximity to auxiliary fuel resources and a portable generator. This will not necessarily power HVAC, but will supply lighting. As planned, use of that part of the building should be regarded as a temporary, rather than long-term, solution. Councilor Wendland, as Council liaison to the PARKS Board, noted that while they support many of the sustainability features, Board members also recognize the substantial cost of a full array of PV panels. Although they would study it further, they were concerned that other Parks and Recreation expenditures might also be an option. Priorities would need to be weighed. In ensuing discussion, Ms. Marsicek confirmed that the full array could serve the entire building, contributing 7% of its total energy usage; Mr. Moerlins indicated it was a matter of circuiting. In discussion of associated expense, Ms. Marsicek noted that the current best estimate of$20,000 might be sufficient to make it solar-ready, though the team would continue to explore this. Mr. Anderholm emphasized the multiple factors to be considered, beyond the additional panels themselves. One is the matter of building integrity: it makes more sense to integrate a hole in the roof as part of the original construction, for example, than to do so later. This sort of consideration is a reason the team requested the study session. In speaking with Ms. Marsicek and Mr. Powers, they agreed to continue to explore this and perhaps develop it as an alternative option for buildout going into the bid phase; this would enable comparison between the current estimates and "hard" numbers. After noting additional considerations, he reported on a discussion at the prior evening's PARKS Board meeting. With the quickly-advancing technology in solar energy and the 15-20- year life of today's PV panels, it is likely that opportunities for yet-more effective options for replacement will be seen. Though attentive to Council's budget direction, the team sees potential benefit to the expanded array, whether by doing it now or by making provision for doing it later. Councilor Nguyen inquired about the possibility of exploring potential savings in gas costs by setting a reduced water temperature(s) for the pools, given that heating this water is the major component of LORAC energy consumption. Mr. Anderholm advised that the minimum water temperature is regulated by the State. In general, competitive swimmers prefer the coolest water temperature, while younger and older pool users prefer warmer water. In their engagements with LOSN and SAB, the project team had been asked to review the possibility of heating the pool water only through an electric system and eliminating the gas. They found that, in the current climate, a redundant system would be necessary, requiring both electric and natural gas systems. The issue is that technology is not yet available to allow elimination of the gas option. The City City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 19 March 17, 2022 should be well positioned because of the efficiency of gas and the expected 20-25-year life of the gas boilers. At such time as they must be replaced, the transition from gas is expected to be less challenging. Councilor Wendland requested clarification of the expected energy reduction, with solar panels and 60% of the building's energy use attributed to pool heating. Ms. Marsicek indicated that the quoted 3% was for the facility's total energy usage. Mayor Buck recapped the Council's requests: (1) The team will further investigate the solar question, allowing Council to consider effects of moving forward with the full array, perhaps reviewing hard numbers in the context of the payback period. (2) Council endorses the proposed use of heat pumps and the commissioning. In response to Councilor Wendland's question about when ground might be broken, Mr. Anderholm discussed the timeline and advised that submittal for land use has been made. Ms. Marsicek indicated that about two more months of drawing is anticipated. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 8.1 Lake Oswego Parks & Recreation Park Land Acquisition Policy Mr. Anderholm provided background on the proposed acquisition policy, as detailed in the Council Report (Parks and Recreation Park Land Acquisition Policy). Council action is requested to enact this policy, which essentially replaces the adopted parks disposition policy that has been in place for about the past eight years. The City has been approached numerous times in recent years about potential properties for acquisition, from a variety of sources (Council Report, p 3/10). The proposed policy (Attachment A) addresses Council members' inquiries about a formalized approach for evaluation and acquisition. This policy, developed by Parks and Recreation staff, incorporates best practices of the Oregon and National Recreation and Park associations. It includes evaluation to ensure that properties are a good fit with the community's parks system. While it codifies the City's approach, the City Council will continue to make the ultimate decisions about acquisition approvals and timing. In follow-up discussion, Mayor Buck and Mr.Anderholm recognized the PARKS Board's work and their subsequent approval of the proposed policy. Councilor Wendland asked if Council would be precluded from making a decision in a scenario where confidentiality was requested in considering an acquisition. Mr. Anderholm noted that this and other typical situations are addressed in the report (p 3/10); he reiterated that Council's authority to make a decision is not altered in any way by the policy. Councilor Manz moved to approve this policy to establish guidelines for the acquisition of parks, trails, and natural areas for the purpose of public recreation, natural resource protection, and environmental sustainability. Councilor Wendland seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Verdick, Manz, Mboup, Wendland, and Nguyen voting `aye'. (6-0) 9. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Buck recapped items on the Consent Agenda. 9.1 Contract Award for the Design and Permitting of the Daniel Way Channel Stabilizing Project, Work Order 323 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 19 March 17, 2022 Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign a professional services contract with Murraysmith Associates in the amount of $300,463.00 for design and permitting services for Work Order 323, Daniel Way Channel Stabilization Project. 9.2 Contract Award for the 2018-2022 Pavement Management Program 2022 Preventative Maintenance Projects (2022 Slurry Seal), Work Order 325 Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign a public improvement contract with Doolittle Construction LLC for the construction of the Work Order 325, 2018-2022 Pavement Management Program: 2022 Preventative Maintenance Projects (2022 Slurry Seal) in the amount of$477,012.23. 9.3 Ordinance 2874, An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Lake Oswego Three Parcels, Consisting of 2.07 Acres at the Southeast Corner of Kimball and Baleine Streets with No Situs Address (21E07CA02902, 21E07CA03000, 21 E07CA00100) Declaring City of Lake Oswego Resource Protection (RP)Overlay and Zoning Pursuant to LOC 50.01.004.5(a-c); and Removing the Territory from Certain Districts (AN 21-0003). Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2874. END CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Wendland moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Mboup seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Verdick, Manz, Mboup, Wendland, and Nguyen voting `aye'. (6-0) 10. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 11. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor Wendland reported on a well-attended PARKS Board meeting that involved many engaged people on the subject of pickleball courts. The pertinent neighborhood association is requesting removal of the courts, and the related discussion was lengthy and intense. Council members can likely anticipate receiving additional emails. The current status is that the PARKS Board will be studying the matter, exploring the implications of various options they may have, perhaps including additional soundproofing measures. It does not appear that any other locations for the pickleball courts can be found in Lake Oswego, he noted. In response to Mayor Buck's question, Councilor Wendland indicated that the Board meeting was continued to allow more time to identify possible solutions; they did not specifically recommend removal of the courts at this time. Councilor Mboup reported on the recent trip to Washington, DC, for the National League of Cities Conference. He commended the excellence of City staff members Charity Taylor and Jamie Inglis and recognized the guidance they had provided for student members of the Lake Oswego Youth Council. The young people had shown intelligence and poise in their interactions with senators and others during the visit. Participating City employees and Council members alike City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 19 March 17, 2022 were a source of pride, with Mayor Buck and Councilor Nguyen making presentations and Councilor Verdick also representing the City very positively. The learning experience was invaluable, he concluded, and they were happy to learn that the Lake Oswego City Council is functioning effectively. 12. REPORTS OF OFFICERS No Reports of Officers were provided. 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Buck adjourned the meeting at 6:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Vri; Kari Linder, City Recorder Approv;d by the City Council on June 7, 2022 • Joseph . Buck, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 19 March 17, 2022