Approved Minutes - 2022-11-14 Special CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
rrA
MINUTES
V November 14, 2022
aREGO \
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Buck called the City Council special meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. on Monday,
November 14, 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, Councilors Rapf, Manz, Mboup, Wendland, and Verdick.
Councilor Nguyen was excused.
Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Evan Boone, City Attorney Pro Tem; Kari
Linder, City Recorder; Evan Fransted, Senior Planner; Ivan Anderholm,
Parks and Recreation Director; Kyra Haggart, Park Analyst I Project
Manager; Jessica Numanoglu, Deputy Community Development Director
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Buck led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor Buck reminded those present it was how the community worked through its differences
that showed its real resolve as a city. The issues in Lake Oswego were not unique but the way
the community conducted itself should be the example. He thanked everyone in advance for
holding themselves to the highest standards of community engagement, which for this meeting
meant listening respectfully when others were speaking and not engaging in boisterous outbursts,
applauding, etc.
4.1 Appeal of the Development Review Commissions' Decision to Approve a
Development Review Permit, Minor Variance and Design Variances for Additions to
an Existing Dwelling at 520 5th Street (LU 22-0041 /AP 22-05).
Attorney Boone read the legal parameters for the quasi-judicial hearing.
Mr. Fransted, Senior Planner, presented the Council report via PowerPoint, reviewing the
Applicant's request, testimony in opposition to the application submitted during the September
19th public hearing before the Development Review Commission (DRC), summarizing the three
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 27
November 14, 2022
issues being appealed and Staff's response, and provided a brief overview of the project and
associated minor variance and design criteria. Staff recommended the City Council uphold the
DRC's decision to approve LU 22-0041. He clarified the criteria shown on Slide 18 under B. III
would apply if the Applicant had picked that option. There were three options to meet that criterion
because of Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) rules and the Applicant had chosen the first two
options shown, not B III.
Mayor Buck asked whether the structure was in the Downtown Redevelopment Design District
or under the umbrella of the First Addition Neighborhood standards. Mr. Fransted replied First
Addition did not have an overlay, it had an R-6 zone. Across the alley to the west was the R-6
zone where all the unique standards applied. This structure was in the R-2 zone. Mayor Buck
noted the lot was larger than the 2,000 square foot minimum but seemingly difficult to build on.
He asked what people were supposed to build if so many variances were needed to build
something on a 3,000 square foot lot in the R-2 zone. Mr. Fransted noted the lot was in a high-
density zone and seemed to be geared more towards attached housing, like the properties to the
south and north. Zero-lot-line dwellings would probably be the easiest way to develop the lot.
However, the lot could not be attached to adjacent lots because those lots were already
developed. The narrow lot width and small lot size made it very challenging to do anything with a
single-family dwelling.
Mayor Buck commented the fact the lot was in between two existing developed lots with no lot
lines created a bit of a conundrum. Mr. Fransted replied the lot would need variances regardless
of the development to the north and south because the lot was so small and so narrow. Having
the abutting dwellings on the north and south so close to the property lines already created more
challenges. Mayor Buck asked setbacks would be necessary if a duplex was developed on the
lot. Mr. Fransted clarified a duplex required seven-foot side setbacks, one foot less than the
requirement for a single family. There would still be side setbacks of a combined 14 feet instead
of 15.
Mayor Buck called for the Applicant's presentation.
Chelsa Bocci,Applicant, stated Lake Oswego was her hometown. She fell in love with the home
on Fifth Street and bought it with the dream of raising her young daughter and building a forever
home in First Addition, which was very special. She offered an apology to the Neighborhood
Association.While an official neighborhood meeting was not required for the project, it would have
helped create a more inclusive atmosphere. An initial Zoom conference was held to share the
preliminary design and she attended a meeting earlier in 2022, introduced herself, and shared
her plans early in the design process. She had learned those initial meetings were not considered
official in the eyes of the Association, which would have appreciated a more formal submission.
She admitted the process was new to her, and she was learning as she went along. It was hard
to know what was expected outside of the formal process with the City. Had she known an
additional meeting was requested, she would have been happy to oblige and discuss the project
in a more inclusive manner. As for the design itself, she had been intentional every step of the
way to maintain the original essence of the home. She chose to work with architect Donny Schmidt
of Centerfield Studio because he shared her vision of holding onto the charm that made the
current home special. She engaged the previous owners at different points in the process to learn
more about how they dreamed of changing the home when they resided there. While the zoning
of her lot allowed for a much larger development, that was never her goal. She saw big
developments happening all over town and she knew how difficult change could be; having grown
up in Lake Oswego, she felt it, too. Her aim was to design something that fit within and contributed
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 27
November 14, 2022
to the existing neighborhood. For example, opening up the front of the property and bringing the
home closer to the street with an open porch and lawn which was more inviting. Currently, the
house was set back and hidden behind a tall wooden fence. The front parking had been removed
and relocated it to the back alley. A lot of thought was given to height and lot coverage and how
both would impact the neighbors. The design was meant to be intentional, respectful, and
considerate of the neighbors and their needs. Lot coverage had been raised as a concern of the
Neighborhood Association, but the lot was very narrow, and she was pleased with how the
architect had designed the remodel which would give the family more living space while
maintaining breathable space between neighbors. She was grateful the Planning Commission
and Planning Staff had approved the design and hoped the Council would also give its support.
Donald Schmidt, Centerfield Studio, representing the Applicant, said he appreciated the
Mayor's conversation with Staff regarding the complexity of the zoning. He presented the
Applicant's proposal via PowerPoint and noted the 884-square foot bungalow could not really be
seen from the street. To the south of the house was the narrow lot, two-story, zero-lot-line
development, and those homes existed more and more. There was a duality between the
Downtown Redevelopment District and the density that was trying to be applied, and this small,
beautiful, inspiring, bungalow residence. Bungalows still exist on Fifth Street, especially moving
north, and the Applicant loved that character and essence and tried to find ways to continue to
pick up that.
• The lot was 30 feet wide, 3,660 square feet overall, with an 884-foot square foot home and
those factors made keeping the structure, while maintaining the needs of a modern family
very challenging. The resulting design combined a carefully articulated massing with ample
landscaping. The projected transitioned from single-story volume with a walk-up covered
porch in the front to a two-story centrally located volume to reduce the impact of any over
massing, before stepping back down towards the rear alley. The west addition was situated
in the rear alley with the result of moving parking off Fifth to the alley and creating a beautiful,
inviting,front-yard landscaping opportunity. The proposed structure would be slightly less than
26-feet high, less than the allowable 35 feet. The Applicant would provide 30 percent
landscaped area over the required 15 percent. The floor area was well under 50 percent of
the maximum allowed.
• The Applicant was exceeding some portions of lot coverage, however the garage and porches
contributed 12 percent of the covered area and if taken out of the calculation, the Applicant
was in compliance with lot coverage. Those areas were beautifications. The front porch
accounted for more than 160 square feet of lot coverage but was done in an effort to make
the street frontage more beautiful. The Applicant had been inspired by the existing home and
took significant steps to maintain the home.
• One appeal comment argued the Applicant had not demonstrated the garage was necessary
to maintain the existing structure. The proposed garage had an interior clear dimension of 19
feet, 8 inches, smaller than the typical garage of 20 feet. A displayed diagram showed where
the existing structure was and where the garage would be built. Although the garage's width
would just barely fit a car inside, making the existing garage 20 foot wide would result in losing
the major bearing wall of the existing structure.
• The bungalow was a single-family house stuck in a twilight zone. Significant efforts were taken
to reduce the mass. The house would be predominantly single-story, and the second-story
volume would be at a singular, central portion of the site. The Applicant acknowledged they
were over in lot coverage and pushed into side and rear setbacks. He asked Council to look
at the massing and the way the building responded to the surrounding context; it was a quite
respectful building as opposed to the alternative which would be a much more massive and
significant development.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 27
November 14, 2022
Mayor Buck asked the Applicant to discuss how the width of the front addition was chosen. Mr.
Schmidt replied as a starting point, the higher density zoning allowed for the seven and a half
and seven and a half. The project had a six and half and a five and half, which exceeded the five-
foot minimums required as part of the single-family zoning. There was not a specific driver for the
width of the addition. Mayor Buck noted the properties were very close together in a dense area.
He asked if the Applicant considered what was going on the neighboring lots when designing the
shape and layout of the house. Mr. Schmidt said the Applicant had taken neighbors into
consideration and tried to direct any encroachment towards where the prevailing volume was and
towards the rear. As the project moved out to the front along Fifth Street, the building continued
to step back to conform with existing setbacks. The second-story volume also stepped back so it
flowed more in suit with the addition towards the west.
Councilor Manz said she was intrigued by the proposed single-story addition area and asked
about the proposed 50-square foot outside porch, noting the shape of the building.
Mr. Schmidt said the project had a unique floor plan. Very often architects tried to play off on new
versus old, and an effort was made here to create a transition beyond the powder room and sliding
door between the more public facing kitchen/living/dining areas, and the existing space, which
were more private, the bedroom, family room, mudroom, and garage. The transition between the
existing and new proposed addition to the west acted as a transition space between those
programs. Councilor Manz asked about the impetus for taking the garage and car off the front
and utilizing the alley, noting the concept was logical and typical for that part of town. Mr. Schmidt
replied the garage could not face the street and narrow-width lot did not allow the proper turning
radius for a side-loading garage door. The paramount desire was to create a new frontage on
Fifth Street, so the house had a presence, so the garage had to be moved to the back. When the
project first started, the area was shown as a car port but that evolved through continued
discussion and because of the prevailing precedence along the alley where there were multiple
examples for alley-facing garages. The roofline of the addition covered a portion of the outdoor
area. It would have been possible to forgo the covered outdoor area and chop up the roof a bit
more. However, the proposed covered outdoor area, the 50 feet and the 50 feet of footprint area,
further exacerbated the overage of lot coverage. In reality, 12 percent of the lot coverage was
dedicated to garage and covered outdoor area. In terms of how massing was perceived, having
cover was a good thing and not a bad thing.
Councilor Wendland asked when the process had been started. Mr. Schmidt replied the
process had started more than one year ago. Being in the Downtown Redevelopment District, the
desire was to develop the existing single-family house as a single-family house, and the burden
was on the client to meet the standards of what was thought of as a high-density, mixed-use zone.
The Applicant had already done a Geotech, and had structure engineers out to the site, but the
project was still early in development. The Applicant had not yet put together final building permit
plans because they were still in the process of trying to get approvals for the basic tenets of the
design. Councilor Wendland asked how much time had been spent on the review process. Mr.
Schmidt said the current appeal was an additional month, perhaps slightly longer. The process
of doing the DRC took about three months from start to finish and was required for the scale of
design in the Downtown Redevelopment District. The DRC involved Geotech and the arborist,
which involved time and an upfront expenditure that would not normally be required so early on a
project.
Mayor Buck called for the Appellant's presentation.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 27
November 14, 2022
Carole Ockert, First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FANFH
NA), read her written comment into the record, describing how the proposed project did not meet
Lake Oswego's Land Use Code. Stating the City was rightly focused on Lake Oswego's Land Use
Code.With Code, there was the constant pressure for interpretation to slip over time. Applications
often pushed up against Code, pressing for a more liberal interpretation; that was expected. With
this Application, the Code was stretched too far. The decision on the project at DRC was a split
vote. There was uncertainty at the DRC level on how to interpret and apply Code. Ms. Ockert said
her job was to demonstrate that DRC misinterpreted the Code. The Applicant did not make a valid
case for being granted five design variances. Neither the DRC nor the prepared findings
referenced and addressed the issues raised in the FANFH NA's submitted testimony. Nor did the
findings detail how the Application met the criteria for the design variances. The Code stated to
warrant a design variance, the Applicant must meet one of two criteria: The design must be
superior to the development in the surrounding neighborhood or better achieve the purpose
objectives of the applicable zone or design district and design standards. The Applicant did not
meet either of those standards. Additional comments were noted as follows:
• The Application stated numerous times that approval of the proposed variance would result
in a building of exceptional quality, detailing, and appearance. Exceptional quality, detailing,
and appearance was a description that applied to development in Lake Oswego. But what
was relevant was that the Code specifically used the term, `superior,' which meant the design
must surpass the exceptional quality the City's Code delivered. This design had achieved
equal to or as good as. The Application did note the proposal was better than the original 1938
structure. Better than the original structure was not what the design variance criterion was
referring to. To meet this hurdle, the design must be shown to be superior to what was seen
in the R-2 zone and the Downtown Redevelopment District, and that was a high bar. The
Applicant simply did not provide the necessary proof of superior.
• The second criteria of better achieving the purpose objectives of the applicable zone. In the
R-2 zone there were Code standards written to encourage higher density. With respect to
personal property rights, if someone wanted to build a single-family residence in the R-2 zone,
the City adopted Code to still allow for single family to be built. However, the City purposefully
adopted Code to incentivize duplexes. A single-family home was allowed 35 percent lot
coverage while a duplex on that same lot would be allowed 55 percent lot coverage. The Code
clearly incentivizes duplexes. The Applicant wanted 47 percent lot coverage for a single-family
dwelling. Granting the variance to expand lot coverage by more than a third for a single-family
structure undermined the intent for the higher density R-2 zone by handing out Code benefits
meant for a higher-density use to a low-density project. If the City allowed it for this Applicant,
would it continue to waive the lot coverage Code for others who want to build single family in
the R-2 zone? Single family did exist in the R-2 zone already, but very few properties had
chosen to go the same direction. Did the City really want to undermine the successful
production of Middle Housing?
• Rear-yard setbacks in the R-2 zone also incentivized duplexes. Code called for a required
setback of 20 feet for a single-family structure, but a required setback of only 10 feet for a
duplex. This Application requested a design variance for a reduction of the setback from 20
down to 4.5 feet. The DRC was shown properties with reduced setbacks that were
predominantly duplexes, which was not clarified. The single-family home at 566 Fifth Street
did not have an extensively reduced rear-yard setback. The DRC was unclear at best.
• The zone dimensional standards in R-2 had been written to encourage and promote duplexes,
demonstrating once again that higher density was the purpose and objective of the zone.
Clearly, while permitted, a single-family dwelling could not claim to meet the criteria of better
achieving the purpose objectives of the R-2 zone.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 27
November 14, 2022
• Failing to meet both the above stated design variance standards, the Application inserted a
Code stretch necessary to make the Application sellable. For each of the five requested
design variances, their Application stated, `compliance with the applicable standard is not
practicable due to the physical characteristics of the site or existing structure.'
• Staff used the term, `practicable,' in their presentation to DRC when they stated the proposed
dwelling was less than 50 percent of the allowed floor area for the zone. Staff went on to say
that constructing a code-compliant addition was not practicable due to the significantly
reduced building area in the R-2 zone for the single-family project. Staff's conclusion as
presented to DRC ignored the long-standing practice of basements being incorporated, even
in the R-2 zone, to increase floor area when lot coverage limits had been reached. Builders
do it as standard practice all the time. Basements did cost more to construct, but the City had
not allowed a builder to say increased cost for basements meant lot coverage standards were
not practicable.
• With 520 Fifth Street in Lake Oswego, the City was being asked to set a precedent for a very
specific, very concerning interpretation of the term, `practicable.' The Application stated,
`Compliance with the Applicable Standard is not practicable due to the physical characteristics
of the site or existing structure. At 30 feet wide and 3,666 square feet overall, the site nor the
existing structure simply do not allow for a building footprint sufficient for a single-family home
as necessary to meet today's standard of living.' The Applicant was given written caution in
pre-application notes that conclusory statements, a statement that a criterion was met without
any supporting findings, were not acceptable. The City Council had read the Application and
could see it was full of conclusory statements and lacked solid evidence.
• There was nothing in the Application which could be deemed to prove the claim the current
design `simply did not allow for a building footprint sufficient for a single-family home as
necessary to meet today's standards of living.'The Applicant purchased a smaller R-2 lot with
a single-family home, and it was their choice to keep it as a single family and not develop into
two small studio or one-bedroom duplex units as encouraged by R-2 dimensional standards.
The allowed lot coverage and setback requirements for the site had not been reduced since
the Applicant purchased the site. They knew the lot size and the Code was clear. Staff said
there were no feasible options to construct compliant additions, but Staff were not certified as
architects or home designers. Homes could be creatively designed and making the choice to
keep the home's pre-existing nonconformities already allowed the Applicant to build in excess
of zone dimensional standards.
• What exactly designed today's standards of living? On whose terms? What Code site met
today's standard of living? Meeting today's standard of living was what practicable would
mean going forward if the City Council upheld the DRC's split decision. The DRC did ask staff
the meaning of the term practicable but was not provided explanation or context outside of
the simple definition.
• A review of the City's Code showed that `practicable' was referenced with sensitive lands,
master planning, stormwater engineering, street design, land division, and flood management
areas. What was not found in the Code were the words, 'as necessary to meet today's
standard of living.' If the City Council allowed today's standard of living to be what practicable
meant, it would be a huge leap. The Council will have set a new precedent, expanded the
usage, and opened the barn door.
• The Applicant failed to the criteria for `superior.' Clearly single family did not better meet the
purposes/objectives of the R-2 zone. The definition of practicable should not be expanded to
include the nebulous concept of today's standard of living. The DRC and the findings failed to
address issues raised in FANFH's written testimony.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 27
November 14, 2022
Jill Cabral-Schinn (FANFH NA) read into the record her written comment which discussed why
the requested minor variances should be denied and concerns expressed by adjacent neighbors,
and the project being incompatible with the neighborhood.
stated the City's Code was set in place intentionally with clear reasoning. Liberties should not be
taken with this particular instance to alter the Code, but the Code should be followed as it had
been followed many times before. The Applicant had requested two minor variances. The Code
stated, `Minor variances allow small adjustments from certain standards of the Code where the
change would have little or no impact on the streetscape or surrounding properties and where no
demonstration of hardship is required.' Minor variances should not be given without regard to the
surrounding residences or the neighbors who lived there. Additional comments were noted as
follows:
• The neighbors on both sides of the lot stepped forward and testified to the DRC with their
concerns about the request to reduce side-yard setbacks. The DRC said because there were
duplexes joined a common wall eliminating a setback on the same block, it was no big deal
to reduce the setback on the lot.The opposite was true; it mattered more to retain the setbacks
because the streetscape needed the space protected by the dimensional standards of both
setbacks and lot coverage. The open lot space was in Code to ensure retention of community-
valued assets such as landscaping and trees.
• The next-door neighbor also was concerned building 4.5 feet back from the alley was too
close. A DRC Commissioner drove through the alley and commented other buildings did not
maintain larger setback, therefore the Commissioner would allow the setback to be reduced
by 15.5 feet. A drive though the alley without measurement was incomplete and therefore an
inappropriate base of information to use and the lots on the west side of the alley were all in
the R-6 zone with completely different code. The DRC could not slide R-6 code into R-2
because the properties shared an alley. The DRC misapplied and generalized when they
should not have.
• The DRC misapplied and generalized when they should not have. The Application stated,
`Prevailing neighborhood pattern ranging from 4 to 5 feet.' This was another sweeping
conclusory statement made without data and Ms. Cabral-Schinn disagreed based on her
observations of the neighborhood. The statement was not for the Appellant to disprove, but
for the Applicant to prove. The Staff should not provide the data; that was the Applicant's
responsibility. Once again, the Applicant did not provide the data.
• The City's Code needed to be implied ("implied" is stated, likely means "applied") in the same
manner across all projects. The Applicant had not met either of the Code-required standards
for design variance. The Applicant had not provided the proof necessary for approval for each
of the five design variances requested, of superior design or evidence of better achieving the
purposes/objectives of the R-2 zone. The Applicant could have submitted a design for a
reasonable addition to the house on the small R-2 lot that would meet zone standards, keep
pre-existing nonconformities, and require no variances. Instead, the Applicant chose an
addition that did not come close to meeting zone standards. 1:01:09.7 draw simply stretch
code? In an attempt to stretch the code, the Applicant expanded the interpretation of the word,
`practicable,'to mean, 'as necessary to meet today's standards,' without any data or definition
as to what those standards were. Clearly, that would set a truly concerning precedent.
• Staff had stated on record that DRC decisions did not set precedent. The Commissioners'
responsibility tonight, as a body elected by citizens and not developers, was to determine
whether the DRC accurately interpreted and applied the Code in reaching their decision. The
Appellant had demonstrated that in this instance, the DRC had not accurately interpreted
Code and respectfully recommended the Council reverse the DRC decision and uphold the
City's strong, effective Code which protected what was important to the community.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 27
November 14, 2022
Mayor Buck asked if there was any part of the application the Neighborhood Association agreed
with. Ms. Ockert replied when the Applicant had come to the Neighborhood Association early on
the beginning design form looked good, but it was much smaller. The Association had informed
the Applicant it was concerned the setbacks were pushed farther than the Association was
comfortable supporting. At that point, the Applicant stopped communication with the
Neighborhood Association, and the design grew and grew. Mayor Buck understood the Appellant
had not agreed with any design the Applicant had submitted. Ms. Ockert stated the first design
had one piece the Association had been comfortable with.
Councilor Wendland asked what process the Neighborhood Association had gone through to
make all the determinations presented tonight. Ms. Ockert said the Association always walked
through proposed projects as a board. She and another Board member attended the pre-
application hearing and invited the Applicant to speak to their Board. The item was placed on the
agenda, noticed, and a sign was put in the ground. The Association posted the agenda on its
website so as many people as possible could come and participate in the discussions whether
they were board members or not. The meetings were all on Zoom and everyone was invited to
speak.While only board members could vote, the Association did want everyone who participated
in the meetings to feel comfortable joining in on the discussions. A few meetings had the proposed
project on the agenda. Before the Association came to a meeting like this one or submitted
testimony, as it had to the DRC, the Board would discuss the issue, motion the action, second
the motion, and vote. The Board worked towards a consensus decision. Coming before the City
Council tonight had been a unanimous vote. She confirmed about 15 people on average attended
the Association meetings.
Councilor Mboup asked who decided what made a design superior, less than or equal. Ms.
Ockert replied when design variances were put into this form in Code, Staff brought to City
Council Code which stated, `equal to.' Testimony was given in opposition to that phrasing arguing
that design presented, which was equal, should not be granted a variance. To warrant a variance
from the Code standard, a design should be `superior.' City Council chose between `equal to' or
`superior' and said if a development went beyond the standards the community had developed, it
needed to be`superior;'there had to be a reason to blow out the community-developed standards.
Mr. Boone clarified the reference to, `superior,' and `better achieve' was in Subsection I of the
design variances and applied to all types of design variances. Applies was a purpose statement,
not criteria. The purpose was achieved through meeting the criteria. A purpose statement was an
overall goal statement.The question was, how was it achieved? Subsection Ill had general design
variance criteria and stated, 'We shall only approve a design variance if the reviewing authority
determines that the following criteria are met. Subsection A of Subsection Ill was not practicable,
as the Applicant had spoken about. Subsection B II read, 'an alternative design would better
achieve the purpose goals or objectives of the base district.' He clarified, `superior,' and `better
achieve,' was a purpose statement and not the criteria. `Better achieve' was embedded as part of
the criteria for a residential infill design standard,which had been tweaked and modified, however,
this project was not a residential infill design application. The question was not whether or not the
proposal met the purpose because that was not a criterion. The Council should focus in on
Subsection III and the alternative provisions of A I and II, and B I, II, or III.
Councilor Mboup asked if`practicable' was a purpose statement or criterion. Mr. Boone replied
`practicable' was a criterion. The compliance with the applicable criteria was not practicable due
to the physical characteristics of the site or the existing structure. The Commission did not
specifically address practicable but had adopted the Staff report which addressed the practicable
analysis.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 27
November 14, 2022
Mayor Buck confirmed there were no further questions for the Appellant and called for public
testimony.
Saad Jazrawi, 518 Fifth Street, stated he was not against the Applicant living in the
neighborhood, but expressed concern about the rear setback. He had approached the DRC with
expansion plans for his 1400 square foot house but had been told he could not expand because
of the rules, and he respected the rules. If the house burned down in a fire, he would build a house
that complied with the rules. The rules were in place to follow, not bend. The Applicant had
purchased the house in 2019 and the rules had been in place before her purchase. Could a person
complain if they bought a large pickup truck that did not fit into a parking space meant for a Prius?
The lot was small and that was what the Applicant had. Mr. Jazrawi's wife had come to the last
meeting to express the couple's concern but was dismissed and the Commission had
complimented the designer multiple times. Half the neighborhood was rentals now; the property
next to him was a rental and the house across the street was being developed as a rental. There
had been three renters at 520 Fifth Street in the past year and the renters changed all the time.
Did the Council want residents to leave and make their homes rentals? Or did they want people
to live in the city and go to the local schools? If there were rules the City had passed, the Applicant
should follow the rules. If the house ended up being built, it would leave a bad taste in his mouth.
Mayor Buck called for the Applicant's rebuttal.
Ms. Bocci noted a developer wanting to turn a profit could build a duplex on the property, which
the Code seemed to favor. She wanted her daughter to graduate high school in the home, and
she wanted to grow old in the home. She intended to build a home that was long-lasting.
Mr. Schmidt clarified the setbacks on the west side were part of meeting the 20 percent minor to
sideyard setbacks that were allowable to encroach in a setback, but it was somewhat of a moot
point as the Applicant had greater sideyard setback reductions with the existing structure and the
garage.
• With regard to superior practicable design, he reiterated the Applicant was trying to keep the
house, which was a big portion of the proposal. Building the garage was a major piece of
locating how the parking, the massing and all those pieces came together. The Applicant
could either take down the character and lose some components of the existing house and
move towards more high-density zoning or try to develop a project that worked around and
through the existing structure. The Applicant had taken significant steps to address the
prevailing or most concerning components of rear and sideyard setbacks and lot coverage,
which were the big asks the Applicant was looking for in the design.
• The house to the north had a garage with a two-foot setback, so there were multiple
precedents. The Applicant understood the alley was a different zone in the R-6, but it still
established a clear setback encroachment into the rear alley.
• The Applicant was largely working with the existing structure and when the second-level
addition was completed, which was a part of conforming to standard Code, the massing
was stepped back.
• The DRC decision was 4 to 1, not a split vote. The Applicant was not trying to stretch Code.
The design tried to be respectful to its context and surroundings, and the Applicant was
building less than half of the allowable floor area for a single-family residence.
• He confirmed the character of the house was being maintained. Referencing images of the
proposal, he said the existing volume in the back noting the windows would be retained. The
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 27
November 14, 2022
mudroom would be extended out and the building would step back where the new addition
would be built to the west.
• To be able to prove something was `superior' from a design perspective was difficult in the
eyes of an architect. Architects challenged themselves with massing, context, materiality, and
detailing, and used those as opportunities.Architects tried to address things like street context
and other planning things in ways that were more exciting than typical.
Councilor Mboup asked how the Applicant defined practicability. Mr. Schmidt replied the garage
was a major component of the design. The client wanted the property to continue to be a single-
family residence, but 884 square feet did not allow much room for a growing family. With today's
budget, building technology, and other real-life applications, it was difficult to prove a single-family
residence capable of providing for the needs of a family could fit into 884 square feet and meet
the definition of practicable per planning. He confirmed that he considered architecture an art.
Councilor Rapf asked if it was possible to place an objective metric around things like superiority
or beauty or use those terms with supporting objective metrics in art. Mr. Schmidt believed it was
possible, but it was a slippery slope and the difference between contemporary architecture,
traditional architecture, and the love of both. As an architect that did a lot of work in Lake Oswego,
he was confronted regularly with existing remodels and ground-up homes, and the challenges of
trying to be inspired and make the most of different things. The word, `superior,' was unfortunate.
Mr. Boone reminded that the word `superior' appeared in the purpose statement and was not part
of the criteria. The question was whether or not the project was not practicable due to the physical
characteristics of the site or existing structure, or the alternative design accomplished the
purposes, goals, or objectives of the base district.
Mr. Schmidt agreed it was tricky, particularly for a house to address each individual statement.
The Appeal argued the Applicant was not necessarily within the narrative. However, the art of
architecture involved understanding the nuance and what made something a successful design.
The Applicant had taken the spirit of the existing house and tried to expand it,which was a slippery
slope and very challenging to do. The Applicant believed the design was successful because it
maintained the scale, proportion, windows, roof sloping, materiality, and patterning of some of
those things while giving the house the street frontage and presence it lacked today. The house
was the red herring on Fifth Street since it was tucked away behind a fence and was non-descript.
The house had tremendous character they wanted to bring forward, which was what the Applicant
was doing.
Mayor Buck closed the public hearing.
Mayor Buck asked Mr. Boone to clarify how the flat, rectangular lot might not be practicable. Mr.
Boone stated the criteria was, 'not practicable due to the physical characteristics of the site or
existing structure.' He confirmed physical characteristics could include dimensional
characteristics like slope or streams. When the DRC considered cases about physical
characteristics, all of that had been considered in addition to the footprint of the existing structure
and its interior functionality and how one could expand to that, not necessarily just adding square
footage.
Mayor Buck noted the dimensions of the lot set some of the other parameters, such as floor ratio
and setbacks. When a lot was so small, could a developer claim building to the parameters was
not practicable and be able to build a much larger project? Mr. Boone replied practicable was
defined as, `capable of being done after considering a balance in cost, existing technology, and
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 27
November 14, 2022
logistics in light of the overall project purposes.' One component was to determine whether the
existing house presented practical difficulties, but it was not the only criteria. The question was
whether the resulting project was exceptional in the quality of detailing, appearance, and
materials, or it created a positive, unique relationship to other nearby structures, views, or open
space. Those were the criteria the Applicant had addressed.
Mayor Buck confirmed the base district was R-2, not the Downtown Redevelopment District, and
asked that the questions the Appellant raised about the purpose of the R-2 zone be addressed.
Mr. Boone read, "The alternative design will better accomplish the purposes, goals, or objectives
of the base district and, any adopted plan or overlay district applicable to the property." The
Council could consider both the R-2 and Downtown Redevelopment District. He clarified the
Appellant's argument was that the purpose of the R-2 was to provide for denser housing, not
single-family housing, but the base district did not exclude single-family residences. A fair
argument was that the objectives of the R-2 district were a mix. The objectives did not exclude
single-family dwellings but provided standards for single-family builds. However, those standards
could be varied by addressing the design elements to mitigate the impacts resulting from the
variation. For example, a five-foot setback was generally for privacy; however, privacy could be
addressed in the design component of the house.
Councilor Manz asked if the lot was smaller or narrower than the average in the R-2 district.
Would building a duplex on the lot be a hardship or were all the lots about the same size? Mr.
Fransted replied lot sizes on the 500 block of Fifth varied. Mr. Boone said there were similar
situations with historic platted lots in Lake Oswego. The city had small width lots that were
sometimes purchased and consolidated to make larger lots. There were many small lots south of
the subject property, but larger developed lots to the north which were probably underlying small,
platted lots that had been combined.
Councilor Wendland asked if variance requests were unusual. Mr. Fransted replied the City
received a number of different design variance applications. Usually, the applications were RIDs
and had to meet the basic design standards. Councilor Wendland explained he was trying to
determine if this was an unusual situation. The Applicant was requesting five variances, but all
were minor variances, other than the garage. Jessica Numanoglu, Deputy Community
Development Director, said the situation was unusual in the R-2 with a Downtown
Redevelopment Design overlay. Staff did not typically see many single-family dwellings that had
to go through design review, so it was unusual in that respect. Variances in general were not
unusual. Design variances were less usual than RID design variances or minor variances. She
could not provide an exact number. Councilor Wendland agreed it was a unique situation and
confirmed with Staff it was typical for someone doing improvements to a property to need some
variances, especially on a 3,000 square lot.
Councilor Rapf moved to tentatively affirm the Commission's decision to approve LU 22-
0041, with conditions of approval and direct staff to present findings, conclusions and an
order finalizing the Council's tentative decision on December 6, 2022. Councilor Verdick
seconded the motion.
Councilor Mboup stated on any given lot there were certain setbacks to respect. In this case,
the Applicant was not respecting the setback, so why should the Applicant go forward. He had
read about practicability; was that what Planning had seen? The Council always spoke about the
Code and how it had to be respected. If someone did not respect the Code, they should have
something clear to refer to so the City could grant a variance. He would not vote for anybody who
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 27
November 14, 2022
did not respect the Code. He trusted the DRC; they were respectful people. However, the Code
in Lake Oswego stated practicability meant, "capable of being done after considering and
balancing cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes." Why was it
not practicable for the Applicant to build while respecting the setbacks?
Mayor Buck said he somewhat agreed with Councilor Mboup. Some elements of the project did
meet the standards and the setbacks were not injurious. The requested deviations for both the
extension of the existing dwelling and the new dwelling to the east were minor deviations from
the standard. However, he did not agree with the backyard setback not being practicable simply
due to the size of the lot. The reason, 'it's not practicable,' could be used in any situation to build
a larger structure. The purpose of the base district was to provide housing and housing could be
built. It was practicable to build on the lot, just not the size the Applicant would like to build. The
product the Applicant presented looked fine, subjectively, but he heard the neighbor next door
and agreed there was a sizeable deviation in the back. There were elements the Mayor would
approve, but as a package, he did not think he could agree with it.
Mr. Boone clarified no one was suggesting the Applicant did not comply with the rules of the
Code, because the rules included both the dimensional default provisions and the opportunity for
variances; the Applicant had to meet the criteria. The Council's job this evening was to decide if
the Applicant met the criteria. The project was a package. Councilor Mboup noted the package
included some troubling elements.
Ms. Numanoglu added practicable was both due to the existing site characteristics as well as
the existing structure. The project purpose of this Applicant was to retain a significant portion of
the existing dwelling. Almost the entire dwelling would have to be demolished to accommodate a
rear-loading garage. The garage could be placed in the front, but that would obviously detract
from the street-facing façade, and it would be difficult to comply with garage appearance and
locations on such a narrow lot. Those were the physical constraints due to the site and the existing
structure, which the Applicant proposed to retain.
Mr. Fransted clarified the Applicant was retaining 60 percent of the existing structure.
Councilor Verdick noted in an R-2 zone, single-family was allowed. People should not be
punished because they wanted a single-family house. The Applicant was trying to deal with the
site and its limitations. Complying with the side setbacks would result in a 15-foot-wide house,
which was a very narrow home. Councilor Verdick appreciated the Applicant keeping a large
portion of the original structure and the character of the home, which in this case meant moving
back. It was not as though the Applicant wanted a large, two-car garage. Yes, the lot coverage
was over, but the square feet of the proposed house was actually moderate, especially for Lake
Oswego. The house was under 2,000 square feet. The Applicant could have more square footage
and create a tower. The Applicant chose instead to look at the character of the neighborhood and
the streetscape and tried to keep the charm of Fifth Street and placed some of the mass in the
back. The project was an excellent example of why the City allowed variances, which were part
of the Code. The Applicant was following the Code which allowed for variances and then went
through the extra steps to help ensure that projects were kept within character and so forth. Mayor
Buck asked if Councilor Verdick would see the situation differently if the Applicant was starting
from scratch without the existing structure but proposing the same plan. Councilor Verdick
replied that was a completely different approach and the City would still be looking at variances
either way. The structure would look very different, but a lot could be done with a new structure.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 27
November 14, 2022
She did not think she could give the Mayor a clear answer from a building design perspective.
Mayor Buck replied Councilor Verdick made a good point and he may have been swayed.
Councilor Rapf stated he felt as though the community talked out of both sides of its mouth. On
one side, it talked about how it wanted to keep things the same, but the other side talked about
growing the community, build parks, attract younger families, lower housing costs, and make the
community better and younger and grow it. The community could not do both. If the City wanted
to attract younger families and children to make the schools the best in the state, things had to be
affordable. He empathized with the Applicant who wanted to move back to Lake Oswego but did
not have the budget to buy a bigger lot and was doing the best she could on the lot she had.
There was a community around her meddling in her private life to a degree that was incredibly
unfair to someone who wanted to come back and live in the community she grew up in and raise
her daughter here. The Lake Oswego community needed to come together to stop the
divisiveness, rally around each other, and work together to build a community together, and help
younger families move here. He was fully in favor of allowing the Applicant to start her life with
her young daughter in the community. All variances were not the same; in some circumstances
adjustments had to be made. This property was so small there was not much else that could be
done unless variances were approved and allowed.
A roll call vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Rapf,
Manz, Wendland, and Verdick voting `aye', and Councilor Mboup voting 'no', (5-1).
The City Council took a break from 6:40 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
5. STUDY SESSION
5.1 Pickleball Site Suitability Study Summary and Update.
City Attorney Boone confirmed no Councilor needed to declare a financial conflict of interest
and read the procedures for the public comment process.
Mayor Buck read the list of the 20 people selected to provide public comment.
Ivan Anderholm, Parks and Recreation Director, introduced Kyra Haggart who lead the
Project Taskforce and the Pickleball Site Suitability Study. Ms. Haggart would present the
Council with information about the Taskforce and its recommendations along with options for
transitioning pickleball play.
Kyra Haggart, Park Analyst and Project Manager, commented that regardless of the
outcome of tonight's meeting, she was proud of what had been accomplished by the Project
Taskforce over the past four months, and Council should as well. The Taskforce invited
passionate pickleball players and neighbors of the George Rogers Park courts to be part of the
conversation. Despite the divisiveness of the issue, the two groups were able to set aside their
differences and work together to try to find a solution. She presented the Staff report via
PowerPoint, providing a general overview of the Taskforce's goals and the process leading up
to this evening's work session, reviewing the community survey results, and identifying
alternative sites and prioritization.
• She described the Taskforce's recommended preferred alternative sites.
• Parks Staff worked together with Associate Planner Courtney Simms on land use feasibility
and assessment of potential alternative sites.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 27
November 14, 2022
• The Rosewood/Pilkington site was an underserved area in the 2025 Parks Plan and
identified as an area of the city without the same level of access to recreation opportunities
as other areas.
Ivan Anderholm, Parks and Recreation Director, continued the Staff's presentation,
summarizing the interim options for pickleball play at George Rogers Park while courts were
built at an alternative site. The Parks Department's estimated developing new courts would take
16 to 24 months. Preliminary estimates to build new courts including information about the costs
of the new court, were in the packet and reflected first run, non-funded, CIP-type numbers for
the budget and timeline. Before getting more precise costs and timing, Staff sought the
Council's direction on which potential sites to explore further, as well as what options should be
explored for the George Rogers courts. He noted at the July meeting, Council gave Staff clear
direction to continue looking at sound mitigation for the George Rogers courts. Additional
information was presented by one of the Taskforce members on technology featuring an open-
cell material covered with fabric that absorbed the sound and did not allow the sound to reflect.
According to the manufacturer, the technology was more effective than barriers that reflected
the sound.
Ms. Haggart clarified the recommended 150-foot minimum distance with mitigation came from
looking at examples of how other communities addressed the issue; however, there was not a lot
of clear guidance on the right thing to do. Some studies indicated 150 feet with sound mitigation
could be an acceptable distance from homes. Staff used that number to start the process and
narrow down potential sites. One Taskforce member familiar with sound modeling software used
models to help inform and get people comfortable with 150 feet as an acceptable distance from
homes. Because Staff was able to identify sites within the 150-foot criteria, other sites were not
explored.
Mayor Buck noted the City appreciated receiving so many emails and communications in
advance, which was helpful. Some people asked why the City did not simply enclose or cover
the current courts. Ms. Haggart replied the courts were not covered partly because of the
Development Code standards that applied and the cost of covering the courts. She understood
there were different types of covers, including a bubble cover and an actual structure built
around the courts. Mr. Anderholm added Staff did not pursue covering or enclosing the courts
in part because at some point indoor pickleball courts could be part of the Lake Oswego
Recreation and Aquatic Center (LORAC) project. Additionally, about eight or nine years ago, the
possibility of covering the tennis courts at West Lake was discussed and the community
seemed opposed to placing a massive structure in the middle of a neighborhood park. Both the
survey and the initial conversations of the Taskforce indicated players were looking for an open-
air environment as opposed to indoor space.
Mayor Buck confirmed players wanted a roof but not walls. The City had also received
questions about whether there was a space within George Rogers Park to move the court. Ms.
Haggart responded not enough to accommodate six courts grouped together, which would take
up an area of about 120 feet by 120 feet. The courts could be separated into individual courts.
Mayor Buck asked if the Staff had spoken to the School District about some forms of ad hoc play
to encourage pickleball play within the community and provide outlets on an interim basis while
the City pursued new courts. Ms. Haggart said a preliminary conversation was held about utilizing
some of the covered areas at elementary schools. Perhaps the City could resurface those areas
and stripe for pickleball and whatever other games the School District was interested in and run
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 27
November 14, 2022
some programs during the summer while school was not in session. The conversation was very
preliminary and needed to be pursued further. School Board approval was likely needed, and the
use of District facilities would probably necessitate an intergovernmental agreement.
Mayor Buck confirmed the Department was willing to pursue creative solutions in the interim to
encourage play and think outside the box. Mr. Anderholm added Staff was able to identify two
sites that would meet the criteria set out by the Taskforce. Staff would need to do due diligence
with the School District to pursue the options and determine when the school sites would be
available to the public, which would probably in the summer, depending on what types of summer
programs the District was running at the schools.
Councilor Rapf asked if the Taskforce considered making the courts at the tennis center dual
purpose as done in other communities. Ms. Haggart said the suggestion had come up, but the
Taskforce only outdoor open-air courts were considered as identifying potential courts at indoor
warehouse spaces, the tennis center, or elementary schools, would take longer. The Taskforce
tried to focus its conversations and search to be able to return to Council within the four-month
timeframe.
Councilor Rapf said he was interested in the Rosewood/Pilkington location where the city had
very little park space and it would be nice to balance out parks around the city. The meeting
packet suggested it would take 12 to 18 months to get the site up and running. What would be
necessary to accomplish the build in 12 months? City Manager Bennett explained the real issue
was money. In addition, any potential site would have to go through a land use process.
Councilor Rapf understood the land use process could be burdensome and asked what needed
to happen from a land use perspective to build new courts as quickly as possible. Ms. Haggart
replied Staff first needed Council's direction to have another conversation with the property owner
of the privately owned Rosewood/Pilkington site who had shown some interest. The City would
need to come to a purchase or long-term lease agreement with the property owner. Mr.
Anderholm noted for the land use process to go as smoothly and quickly as possible, outreach
efforts must be made with the neighbors to ensure they were satisfied with the proposed
development to avoid multiple appeals on different points and criteria within the process.
Councilor Rapf confirmed if the City chose to go with the Rosewood/Pilkington site and found
the money for the project, the whole community would need to come together around the idea of
the location. The noted Staff report indicated the cost of the Rosewood/Pilkington site was around
$450,000 and asked what the actual cost would be. Mr. Anderholm replied development would
cost between $700,000 and $750,000. Staff would need to determine street frontage improvement
requirements. The cost would also depend on whether the City leased or purchased the property
as well as whether the existed building was reused or demolished. Clackamas County had
assessed the property's real market value at $1.53 million. The real cost could be higher based
on what the City had experienced with recent bids on the Rassekh Park project and what it hoped
to see when it opened the price proposals for LORAC. Adding pickleball courts was a sizeable
project and should be looked at in the context of the projects already in process and prioritized
accordingly. The current building environment for existing projects made a new pickleball court
project even harder to complete. The Parks Board should be involved in prioritization and advise
Council so that as the City moved through the project, it had a good idea of where the funding
may come from. More than likely, funding would mean dropping a project or a portion of a project
from the existing list. Mayor Buck agreed there would have to be a Council discussion, probably
with the next iteration of the Council around project prioritization as Director Anderholm had just
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 27
November 14, 2022
said. Ms. Bennett noted the City could not afford to build the projects it currently had underway
under the bond due to the bids it was receiving. The City currently did not have enough money to
build Rassekh Park, the golf course, and the LORAC. The conversation about where the money
would come from was not one to have with the Finance Director, City Council had to discuss
priorities; projects could not just be added.
Mayor Buck clarified the City had a number of Parks projects underway that were funded by the
Parks Bond. Those projects included the partnership with the School District on the aquatic
facility, a complete redo of the municipal golf course, and Rassekh Park. He could not think of
another time in the City's history when so many parks project were happening concurrently. But
the pandemic had happened, followed by inflation, and now bids were coming in higher than
anyone could have expected.
Councilor Mboup said he was glad Staff noted the study conducted was not scientifically
significant. A number of pickleball studies in British Columbia indicated an acceptable distance
from houses was 150 meters, not 150 feet. Homes should be 50 meters from tennis courts and
150 meters from pickleball courts. Did Staffs findings about sound mitigation apply to George
Rogers Park? He understood sound mitigation could only be placed after 100 feet; however, the
mitigation at George Rogers was placed at less than 50 feet. Staff had introduced technology to
reduce sound to 12 decibels. If sound was reduced to that level, pickleball could be played at
George Rogers. Unusually, Staff had not made a recommendation to Council. The Taskforce had
worked with many different people but there had not been a homogenous decision in favor of
sound mitigation. The president of the pickleball community had raised a very interesting question
before Council regarding what was the greater good. One point of view was that pickleball could
be played because it was for the greater good. However, others would say if something was
wrong, it was wrong and since pickleball was hurting some people, play should be stopped. This
was the moral dilemma facing the Council. Was Lake Oswego a society who favored the
enjoyment of the greater good, though detrimental to some people? Did the Parks Department
believe if the City invested in the new sound mitigation technology, pickleball could be played
without hurting neighbors? City Attorney Boone said he did not know about the parameters of
the referenced studies. People conducted studies for different reasons with different parameters,
and Council Mboup's question did not imply that if a specific distance was not met, pickleball was
not permissible. That was judged under different criteria and standards. The studies probably
pointed to desirable standards. Councilor Mboup understood Mr. Boone's comments. The
studies included distance with mitigation which implied the sound could be mitigated.
Mayor Buck asked Staff to clarify the siting recommendation. Ms. Haggart replied the Taskforce
used 150 feet as a criteria or guideline to help identify potential sites. The studies, most of which
were conducted by sound engineering firms, were used by the Taskforce to determine whether
sound could be brought to an acceptable level; however, the City did not have a policy threshold.
The Taskforce looked at what was generally acceptable in other communities when sound
mitigation was also used. Mayor Buck confirmed the 150-foot distance would also use sound
mitigation, although greater distances may not require mitigation.
Councilor Manz asked if the white industrial buildings on Rosewood were active warehouses,
manufacturing facilities, or used for storage. Mr. Anderholm replied directly west of the site was
a storage facility and a RV and boat repair facility were north of the site across Rosewood. Beyond
that, the square building was the Goodwill retail and donation site on Boones Ferry. To the south
of the site, moving towards the maintenance center, was a fitness facility. Directly south of the
site was a mixed-retail and commercial building with an auto repair center and homeware retail
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 27
November 14, 2022
frontage. Councilor Manz understood there would not necessarily be anyone in the buildings
who would be disturbed. Mr. Anderholm confirmed the site was next to mixed commercial and
industrial use with a 150-foot setback from the assisted living home across Pilkington. The site
was setback 150-foot from the property line and Staff was looking closely at the
Rosewood/Pilkington property. The other property was highlighted as well, but conversations with
that property owner led Staff to believe obtaining the property would be difficult to buy or lease.
Councilor Manz said she did not want to fall in love with a particular property and then find the
property had similar problems to those in other areas of the city. She asked what the City would
be giving up if it pursued building pickleball courts, and more importantly, how long would it take
Staff to bring the project back to City Council after vetting the property before the Parks Board.
Mr. Anderholm replied the project could be brought to City Council in the spring. With Council's
direction, Staff could bring the project to the Parks Board in the context of other projects as early
as November 16t". The Parks Board would be asked to advise Council on where to prioritize
pickleball amongst the other projects. He could not answer what project(s)would fall off because
no prioritization had been done. He clarified the Taskforce recommended using a professional
team design to model on-site sound mitigation prior to construction of courts.
Councilor Wendland noted the swimming pool had been on the list for 15 or 20 years. The City
had needed more soccer fields for 25 years. The golf course had been in need of repair for 20
years. The Adult Community Center waited almost 15 years to get improvements. The Tennis
Center waited almost 12 to 15 years to get improved. People's expectations needed to be put in
context. If everyone chipped in a couple hundred thousand dollars, the City could make almost
anything happen. Government work involved limited resources and it took longer to get something
done. For this project to be accelerated as quickly as it had was unusual, however people in Lake
Oswego had been waiting on their priorities for decades. To have a solution for pickleball in 6, 8
or 10 months was very unrealistic and to have it even in two years was still accelerated. If a
solution to pickleball impacted the tennis group or Adult Community Center, the number of people
at the meeting that evening would be ten times greater. He liked the Rosewood/Pilkington concept
but suspected the price of the property was a bit low based on what the District had paid for a
piece of land several years ago. Several things needed to be done to get the process up to speed,
which added to the development time. Lake Ridge South was a great spot, but it was harder to
access; it would be available for future recreational use for other things. There were three or four
dog parks already and two dog parks in Hazelia. The land was already owned and there were
already restrooms, though more parking may need to be added. He asked why Staff indicated the
timeframe for Hazelia was longer than the timeframe for the Rosewood/Pilkington site. Ms.
Haggart replied the timeframe for the Hazelia site was longer because the Taskforce agreed it
did not want to take away opportunities for recreation and a dog park was a type of recreation.
The timeline reflected the Taskforce's recommendation to identify a new site and relocate the dog
park before constructing the courts.
Councilor Wendland suggested relocating a dog park was easier to get through the County than
anything else. He asked if dog parks were allowed at Luscher Park. Mr. Anderholm replied it
would not be necessarily easy. There were dog facilities on Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) properties
in Clackamas County. He was sure if a land use process was involved. The timeframe included
in the packet reflected the conditions placed by the Taskforce recommendation of having the
recreational amenity available prior to building the courts. If Council gave a preferred direction
and wanted to fast track development of the courts after priority and funding was identified, Staff
would investigate the timeline further and look at replicating, relocating, or bringing the dog park
back at a later point. The timelines were based on the Taskforce's recommendation that the city
not lose any amenities by installing pickleball courts and ensure amenities were in place when
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 27
November 14, 2022
the courts were installed. Councilor Wendland confirmed with total of four fenced dog parks,
removing one park at Hazelia would not eliminate dog parks in the city. He understood there were
drainage issues at the site which required investment. He liked the idea of running it by the Parks
and Recreation Board, and the options should be run by the pickleball community. George Rogers
was one of the city's crown jewel parks. He was concerned the City was treating pickleball players
as second-class citizens due to noise complaints and displacing players to an industrial park was
not an optimal park experience. The City should provide a nice setting, if possible, as it had in its
other parks. He appreciated Staffs work and noted Ms. Haggart had made space in her calendar
for the project while working on five other projects.
Councilor Verdick asked what the costs would be for the Hazelia Field site. She leaned
towards the Pilkington site, but if it came down to dollars, she wanted to know the rough
estimates. Mr. Anderholm responded a number was provided in a packet. The advantage of
the Hazelia site was some amenities were already in place, but costs could not be detailed until
the extent of the grading and drainage work was known. The total cost would likely be about the
same as the Rosewood site, minus building demolition. The Rosewood site was relatively flat.
The Planning Department had been engaged throughout the Taskforce project so Staff had
some idea of what the parking requirements would be per court.
Councilor Manz thanked the team and volunteers for their work, noting the turnaround time
was very quick, and she had never seen anything like it in all her years in government.
Councilor Wendland had noted the amenities at other sites were lesser than what was available
at George Rogers Park. She asked if amenities could be made available at Rosewood, whether
a food cart or coffee place on site or nearby, to mitigate some of the sadness of not playing at
George Rogers Park. Mr. Anderholm replied the Hazelia and Lake Ridge South sites already
had park-like, or recreational amenities adjacent. The land use process would prevent the City
from merely placing a parking lot and pickleball courts at the Rosewood site. The City would be
looking at a conditional use of the site which would require park-like amenities to soften the site
and develop it as a park.
Councilor Wendland asked if all the sites would cost a half million or more, could sound proofing
be added to George Rogers for less or had that alternative been considered. Mr. Anderholm
replied Staff had not looked at that alternative. Ms. Bennett stated she did not want to estimate
costs because estimates had been very off in the past.
Mayor Buck called for public comment.
• Diana Ross (not available for comment)
• Philip Sterling (via video conferencing) owned property 42 feet away from the pickleball
courts at George Rogers Park. The City had acknowledged George Rogers was not suitable
for pickleball courts and he asked the City to shut the courts to restore the quality of life for
nearby residents; additional sound barriers would not work to mitigate the noise.
• Kirsty Reilly, Board member, Palisades Neighborhood Association, opposed moving the
courts to the proposed sites in Palisades which would move traffic and noise issues to a
neighborhood already burdened with an extraordinary amount of new development and would
present a significant safety concern. The Neighborhood Association's statement along with a
survey it had conducted was on page 125 of the Council report.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 27
November 14, 2022
• Jon Gustafson lived across the street from the pickleball courts at George Rogers Park and
suffered from the cumulative effects of the noise. Councilors had to balance the needs of
different citizens, but Council had taken an oath to uphold the law, faithfully perform their
duties, and had a fiduciary responsibility to protect Lake Oswego citizens from harm. He asked
the Council to protect the neighborhood residents surrounding George Rogers Park and
accept the recommended placement criteria from the Taskforce, apply the criteria to the courts
at George Rogers, or vote to close the courts immediately.
• Elise Monroe noted three percent of the residents of Lake Oswego were members of the
pickleball Facebook group while a smaller group were residents of Old Town. If the issue had
been going on for years and had been harmful and painful, why did those residents not come
forward to the City Council when the bond was being passed to ask for the pickleball courts
to be moved? Players had been complying with hours and things were better. Perhaps
Councilors should visit the courts during a busy time before making a decision.
• Richard Eaton said he would never wish for anyone to be harmed through pickleball. He had
been playing for six years now and without George Rogers and a place to play, there would
be a hole in the community. The courts did only produce the sound of pickleballs on paddles,
but also the sounds of families, friends, and laughter. He hoped a solution could be found.
• Carl Schmits, Managing Director, Facilities Development, USA Pickleball Association, noted
he and his wife had been Lake Oswego residents for 30 years and had cofounded the Lake
Oswego Pickleball Club. His job included ensuring facilities, both retrofit and greenfield, public
and private, had the necessary guidance and support to build safe, specification-compliant,
sustainable operations. At present, the group fielded about 15 to 20 facility inquiries a week
from a balance of public and private entities. There were other ways to address funding,
including public and private partnerships which had started to trend in the last couple of years
in tennis facilities, and were now being seen in the pickleball community as well. There were
a number of different ways to address coverings, including at George Rogers Park. He worked
with suppliers of inflatable domes, hard structures, and tensile membrane. Acoustic mitigation
could be hybridized and placed on a specific site. His full written statement was included in
the meeting materials.
• Amy Buford (via video conferencing) expressed concerns about recommendations to
reduce the hours of play or close the courts at George Rogers Park in the interim period. All
of the mitigation options installed had worked and progress had been made on sound and
parking problems as evidenced by a video sent to City Councilors a few weeks ago. She
suggested the City move forward on George Rogers Park and perhaps a new sound study to
assess the before and after sound levels. Many solutions could be explored if additional
measures were needed to reduce sound. She urged the City to find a way to retain the existing
courts.
• Ed Becker, Parks Advisory Board and Project Taskforce member, stated he was not
representing either group, although he fully supported the work and conclusions made by the
Taskforce. The Taskforce distance and location parameters resulted in only three feasible
alternative sites, all of which would require significant investment by the City. In addition,
replacing the courts at George Rogers would require years of planning, permitting, and
construction before playable courts were realized. After listening to all the issues surrounding
outdoor pickleball courts, he believed the most sensible long-term solution was to bring
pickleball indoors. He suggested the Council consider placing a low-profile air dome over the
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 27
November 14, 2022
courts at George Rogers which could be used as temporary noise-mitigation until courts were
constructed at another location. The structures were used at the Tualatin Hills Recreation
District and Portland Tennis Center. The domes were relatively inexpensive, could be erected
over existing surfaces with minimal damage and removed and relocated easily; they also
dampened the noise, and allow play year-round.
• Doug Anderson, Pickleball Taskforce member, stated the Taskforce was charged with
identifying potential sites, not building costs,timelines, or possible solutions to the sound issue
at George Rogers. Due to the game's popularity and growth, the City should build additional
courts and do so at a reasonable cost. He favored one of the two dog parks at the Hazelia
location since the site was already owned by the City, had bathrooms, park amenities, and
was far away from any residences. The City had other dog parks and the dog park could be
relocated to Luscher Farms. The courts at George Rogers should be kept open. According to
the sound study, the noise from pickleball did not exceed any of the recommended peak levels
or violate any Oregon DEQ Standards, and sound-absorbing panels made by Pickleball
United could be installed to further reduce sound. Further information was available in the
Staff report. His full written statement was included in the meeting materials.
• Michael Setter said he was an Old Town resident and pickleball player, who wanted to stress
the idea of community and unity. The sound mitigation was not working for some of the
households but was working for the general community. He lived within 200 feet of the courts
and had noticed a difference though he was below the pickleball courts. He urged the Council,
community, and pickleball community to work together on the issue. Closing the courts was
an exclusionary measure and would damage other people's health and wellbeing, though
leaving the courts open also damaged people's health and wellbeing. Further mitigation efforts
should be undertaken at George Rogers, which would be more cost effective and faster.
Closing the courts would hurt lower income players, public groups, and new and casual
players.
• Bruce Glabau, Ladd Street resident, stated this was his fourth presentation on the issue, and
his third to City Council. The whole process made him feel like a hostage. He took offense to
a Councilor's comment that pickleball players felt like second-class citizens. He felt like a
second-class citizen who had no voice. Multiple people had been harmed over and over again.
Residents were unable to bring the issue to Council's attention before because players had
taken over the park facility without a planning process. He had to take his children elsewhere
for sports facilities over the years, so why could pickleball players not leave George Rogers
Park and go somewhere else.
• Diane Scurlock summarized the history of the pickleball issue and progress at the City level
and stated the George Rogers Park currently failed in all the areas identified by the Taskforce
as necessary criteria for an alternative pickleball site. Her written statement was included in
the meeting materials.
• Karie Richardson, long time Lake Oswego resident, stated the criteria for distance and
mitigation recommended by the Taskforce looked at models in four other communities but
lacked details on what the modifications included. It would be expensive to build a new site.
George Rogers had already passed the sound studies, and several residents reported
reduced sound. The mitigation worked. The courts should be grandfathered in. She asked
the City Council to keep the George Rogers pickleball courts open and suggested additional
mitigation in the form of a partial or retractable dome or trees.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 27
November 14, 2022
• Nancy Kirk stated building new courts would take a long time and the City should discuss the
future of the courts at George Rogers park after new courts were installed. As a taxpayer, she
did not like Staffs use of the words `replace,' or `alternative,' since the terms suggested the
elimination or destruction of a perfectly good and expensive facility at George Rogers. The
courts reflected an initial taxpayer investment as well as taxpayer funds for sound mitigation.
Any idea of taking a backhoe to the site should raise a red flag. She and other taxpaying
pickleball players from Lake Oswego were forced to play elsewhere because of the time
restrictions at George Rogers. The Pilkington Skate Park had closed 10 years ago, and the
promised new park had never emerged. The driving range had been closed without any
construction activity. If the Council closed the pickleball courts at George Rogers, would that
be another recreation facility loss? Taxpayers would wonder if closing facilities was the norm.
• Leta Gorman said the City should have considered new pickleball courts long ago. Sports
brought joy and being around people and enjoying the entertainment and activity brought joy.
What Council was not hearing was the irreparable harm being brought to residents who had
to listen for hours on end to the pickleball noise. Citizens now had to disclose their homes had
been devalued because of the noise. People were being deprived of their homes and their
own joy in living in their homes.
• Callene Glabau was a long-time resident of Lake Oswego. Ethically, it was not enough for
her to be good to others; ethically she needed to stand up to those who did harm to others.
Very few people could do very great harm to others if the rest of the community sat back and
let them. When people were not being directly harmed, it was easy to rationalize inaction. She
urged the City Council to step up and find the courage, stop the harm to Old Town residents,
and close the pickleball courts immediately.
• Derrith Lambka said she was speaking on behalf of the Old Town Neighborhood Association.
She thanked the City for beginning the process to identify potential sites for pickleball courts
that would do no harm to neighborhoods. The Board asked that the 150-feet criteria
established by the Taskforce be applied to the courts at George Rogers Park and that City
Council close the courts today and restore the courts for tennis. Closure would be aligned with
the City Council mission to cultivate an exceptional quality of life for everyone in the
community. Her full written statement was included in the meeting materials.
• Sandy Intraversato had served on the Parks Board for three terms for a total of nine years
and stated the managers and staff of the Parks Department were dedicated, intelligent, and
service oriented. The City had not anticipated the growth of pickleball nor its unintended
consequences for residents. In June, the Parks Board had made a motion to close the
pickleball courts at George Rogers and do the right siting studies. The Taskforce had
recommended 150 feet as the minimum distance from residences. She recommended the
City rectify the wrong that was done in 2015 and close George Rogers courts.
• Patricia Bourque had been a nine-year resident of Lake Oswego. She was a pickleball
player. Didn't the beach, soccer fields, and baseball fields generate as much if not more issue
than the pickleball courts? She thought the City had to consider a proper sound mitigation
solution which would cost less than building new courts.
Written Public Testimony is found in the meeting materials for Agenda item 5.1.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 27
November 14, 2022
Mayor Buck thanked those present for their testimony and citizens who had submitted written
comment. The City Council convened in July primarily because of the noise concerns expressed
by neighbors by the park. At the time, which was the middle of the pickleball season, there were
no community standards around pickleball, and the Council heard different perspectives on the
mitigation techniques. It was agreed the George Rogers Park was not the best long-term site and
convened the Taskforce to set the siting criteria and apply the criteria to potential locations for
new courts. The Taskforce had done its work and made recommendations to create siting
standards, much like the siting standards created around buildings and development which was
not an exact science, but a decision informed by science, acoustical engineers and best practices
around the United States. Using that criterion of 150 feet minimum distance from residences with
mitigation techniques, as well as community engagement, sound testing and other important
criteria, the group had identified the potential sites before the City Council this evening. The
Pilkington property had scored the highest, Hazelia scoring the second highest, and the Lake
Ridge site scoring third. Throughout the process, neighbors had been engaged and thoughtful
with one another and provided the City Council with a helpful by which it could now evaluate this
park use. There were two questions before the Council this evening to be addressed. The first
question before Council was to provide feedback to Staff on the prioritization of the future sites.
Secondly, does the Council agree with the way the sites had been prioritized or had Councilors
heard other ideas they thought the City should pursue.
Councilor Rapf believed Pilkington was a good location, but many people had talked about
doming or bubbling the George Rogers park. From his experience as a collegiate tennis player,
he knew sound did not travel outside the dome and a dome or bubble would provide for play 12
months a year. The City should seriously consider a dome or bubble in lieu of purchasing
additional property. He agreed with the Staff's prioritization of potential sites.
Councilor Manz was also intrigued by the bubble, which she had not known about before. She
suspected it was not inexpensive, but it would certainly be less expensive than building a hard
feature at George Rogers. She liked the Pilkington site and agreed the area was underused as
far as the City's recreational opportunities. The site was close to a bus line, or what the City hoped
would be a bus line on Boone's Ferry Road. The site could be mitigated, though it would not look
like George Rogers Park, which had been a park for 50 years. Her second choice was Hazelia,
though she it was not the optimum choice because there were two dogs for every citizen of Lake
Oswego and removing a dog park could be yet another unintended consequence. Councilor
Verdick concurred with Councilor Manz.
Councilor Wendland said purchasing property would be expensive and the City already owned
Hazelia, so he leaned towards the Hazelia site. There was a place for the dog park so its removal
could be easily rectified, and it would probably be quicker than the process to get Hazelia fixed.
The City had to invest in the dog park so it would kill two birds with one stone. He liked the
Pilkington site. His earlier comment did not mean the pickleball players were second-class
citizens, but that the Pilkington location was a second-class location versus the park setting at
George Rogers. He wanted his comments characterized correctly because people had
misunderstood him. He had a lot of respect for the Parks and Recreation Department and would
like them to evaluate the idea of an air dome whether as an interim step or a permanent fixture.
The dome would give players year-round activity and keep everything the same. He did not know
whether a dome fit into the City's Code. Ms. Bennett stated Staff would need to research the
regulatory constraints on a dome. Councilor Wendland noted Council had put in emergency
measures during the Covid pandemic for restaurants, parking, and other things, and had stretched
things to help solve issues for everyone. He was impressed with all the comments this evening,
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 27
November 14, 2022
which were passionate but professional. The Council wanted to help solve the problem. The
comments told Council it had an opportunity to combine forces and work together to get the
problem solved. He would prioritize Hazelia and then Pilkington because developing courts at
Pilkington would likely cost $2.5 to $3 million, whereas courts at Hazelia could probably be
constructed for $600,000 to $650,000. The dog park would need to be done, but dog parks were
inexpensive.
Mayor Buck liked the idea of looking into the dome to eliminate the noise issue at George Rogers
Park. Other mitigation efforts had reduced but not eliminated the noise. He liked the geographic
location of Pilkington because it was an area that was underserved, but Councilor Wendland had
a good point. Director Anderhoim wanted a couple of options to pursue and Pilkington and Hazelia
were the top two options of Council with the new option of an air dome for George Rogers Park
in the interim. Everyone wanted to pursue something as soon as possible, but as Councilor
Wendland had pointed out, things took time. The bubble could be interesting. The second
question before Council was what to do in the interim.The Taskforce had come up with a criterion,
something the City did not have before. The sound was rather subjective. Some residents were
extremely bothered by the sound; to others, the sound was not that big of a deal. The same could
be said of many neighborhood sounds, like lawn mowing early on a weekend morning. There was
no right or wrong, it depended on what position someone was in.
Councilor Wendland said when two MIT professors were arguing on opposite sides, it was
difficult to figure out what the reality was. There were extremely bright people in the community,
and the Council had heard from high-level experts on both sides.
Mayor Buck agreed and reiterated the sound was very subjective. Clearly the impact to neighbors
was perceived differently than what the players perceived and that was why the Taskforce had
developed the objective siting standards. He agreed with some of comments that argued the
Taskforce had identified the 150-foot distance with substantial mitigation. Other communities were
requiring even greater distances from homes. More distance would be better. Having the criteria
with substantial mitigation was nowhere near how close the homes were at George Rogers. Some
homes were only 40 to 50 feet away. The City did not have all the information it knew today when
the tennis courts were first repurposed for pickleball courts. He would love to see the Parks
Department work to continue to promote pickleball and find interim solutions to continue bringing
people together while new options for courts were investigated. However, the fact remained the
courts at George Rogers Park should not have been pickleball to begin with. The City did not
know that at the time, but it knew it now. He did not feel he could go forward in good conscious
continuing to support something the City knew was making neighbors miserable. He knew some
of the players felt the same way. No one wanted to make other people feel miserable. The City
appreciated the sport and wanted to continue to invest in it and providing avenues for play.
Councilor Verdick believed the City should focus on getting pickleball sited in the appropriate
location. Ideally, the City would continue to look for different locations. Perhaps when the
wastewater treatment plant was finished, and Foothills was available there would an opportunity
for more courts. She was happy to hear the aquatic center would offer some indoor play as well.
The City was very lucky the sport had become part of life for many residents. However, the
Taskforce had put together criteria and had looked at what other communities had dealt with in
terms of the noise. Not everyone assessed the noise the same way, but it was obviously a problem
for many people which was why many communities provided guidelines for locating pickleball
courts. Lake Oswego's Taskforce recommended 150 feet with mitigation. George Rogers Park
was not even a third of that distance so she did not know how in good conscious the City could
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 27
November 14, 2022
keep those courts open. Perhaps a bubble would work, but until the City knew for sure a bubble
would eliminate noise, the City could not keep the courts open. There were two other pickleball
courts about three miles away from George Rogers in West Linn. Tualatin and many other cities
also had pickleball courts. The City would not be completely removing the ability to play pickleball.
The Council had shown dedication to finding the proper location in Lake Oswego for pickleball
and interim pickleball locations. Staff would help find solutions and as a community, Lake Oswego
could come together and find solutions. Pickleball was joyful for a lot of people, but it also made
other people cry. The City needed to have an inconvenience in the short run and shut down the
pickleball courts at George Rogers because it was doing harm to others and the City needed to
avoid creating harm for residents of the community.
Councilor Manz understood the pain the people feel with the noise of pickleball. She would not
mind pausing or shutting pickleball down during the holiday season while the City investigated
something like a dome. She had struggled with the issue and had a low tolerance for noise herself.
She hoped her rationale was understood. She would love to make everyone happy, but there was
no instant happiness. She just found out about domes tonight and would like to see a pause for
the months of November and December until the issue was worked out.
Councilor Mboup noted the situation was difficult. However, science should solve the problem;
the decision should not be subjective. An independent audiologist should study the sound and
mitigation at George Rogers. If there was evidence the noise was harmful the courts should be
closed until the sound could be mitigated. If it could not be mitigated, the courts should close. City
Council's job was to take the information given by Staff and take a stand. Lake Oswego was a
privileged community. The people sleeping outside in Portland were not talking about pickleball
or enjoyment. Someone had to tell the community the truth; they were all adults. The City could
not function on emotions. The City could not have enjoyment for many if it harmed a few. Harm
was not okay in a community. The City could not close the parks and tell players to go to West
Linn. Players were part of the community, too. The issue could be solved by using science. He
wanted the City to have an independent team of experts see if there was a way to mitigate the
sound and he would vote against any motion to spend $450,000 to build a court. DEQ and the
Department of Health and Human Services had measurable standards for decibels levels and
what levels were harmful. Could the sound be mitigated so the decibel levels were no higher than
tennis? If not, the courts should close. The Council had to be fair, and fairness was based on
something measurable. Otherwise, the Council's decision would be subjective and there should
be a consensus that respected both parties.
Councilor Manz said the skate park closed eight or nine years ago when the City wanted to build
the Operations and Maintenance Center. The City promised a park would reopen. However, the
unspoken rationale at the time was that the park was problematic and costly; it hurt the youth and
was not needed in the city. Ten years later, the City was still discussing the skate park. She asked
if that fell into the same sort of harm Council Mboup was describing. Councilor Mboup said he
was not philosophizing. A former colleague, Jon Gustafson, had testified this evening the sound
was harmful. Mr. Gustafson was a serious man who knew the job the City Council was doing. It
was important to recognize what people were going through. One Old Town resident had spoken
about her husband who could play and had Alzheimer's. That person also had to be recognized
and respected. The harm went both ways. They could not close the courts based on something
unreasonable. His own child suffered when the City closed the skate park. However, back then,
no one was hurt; no one came to say the noise of the skating was hurting them. Presently, the
Council had adults who had said they were hurt, one was crying. The Council had to listen to that.
However, he could not be emotionally attached to anything. The Council was government and
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 27
November 14, 2022
should use the mitigation suggested, whether a dome or fence or moving the court. If the sound
could be measured, the courts should continue. The City should find a reasonable way to mitigate
the noise and he trusted Mr. Anderholm.
Mayor Buck acknowledged Councilor Mboup's comments. The City Council's direction in July
was to pursue mitigation as step one. Mitigation had been added, but the Council had heard the
mitigation had not had the impact the neighbors wanted to see.
Councilor Mboup noted the noise canceling material in the Staff report and reiterated if the City
could make sure the neighbors did not continue to be hurt, the game could continue. Moving the
courts to other neighborhoods was not fair. The Council had to play its role as government which
meant when it made a decision, it made it happen. The decision had to be made using an idea of
fairness.
Councilor Rapf stated the Council was in an unwinnable situation. No one wanted to say no to
pickleball; no one wanted to say no to the people who lived in the neighborhood. Residents should
have compassion for what the Council was dealing with, though he recognized Councilors had
chosen to be in their position. He could not in good conscience close pickleball courts while an
alternative was found. While he empathized with the people who lived near the courts, taking
away a health benefit and happiness was equally challenging. If the Parks and Recreation
Department said mitigation could be placed to solve the problem of the neighborhood, the City
had an obligation to do so now. Ideally, yes, another court would be built somewhere else
however, he did not want to sacrifice any of the existing park projects. If the Parks and Recreation
Department said there was a material to mitigate the sound then it should be done. He could not
close the courts.
Mayor Buck recognized it was a difficult decision and Council did not want to disappoint anyone,
noting the Councilors' views were as varied as those in the community.
Councilor Wendland agreed it was not an easy situation. There was a huge contingency of
people who played pickleball and relied on the City to fulfill its core mission to provide recreation.
The other part was the City owed livability to its citizens. It was easier keep a program open for
people to use because that was black and white. Unfortunately, there was a number of very
passionate people from the Old Town neighborhood who were dealing with parking problems and
other things on top of the pickleball noise. Sound mitigation was something the City had to
consider. He was in favor of moving forward with Staff's recommended option to spend $12,000
on mitigation. He proposed the City pause play if that was necessary. This was the low season
for pickleball and perhaps play should pause until January 1St. In the interim, the City could get
the sound board in or look into the possibility of a dome. He really did not want to shut pickleball
down because he had learned once something was stopped, it was difficult to start back up. He
had a lot of empathy for the community members who were hearing the noise, however he also
knew the City was in a four-to-five-month time period where the noise would be mitigated because
it was the dark season in Oregon and the use of the courts would be limited, which would give
the City an opportunity to look into the two areas of mitigation. Sound was a science and there
were certain parameters. The Old Town Neighborhood would say zero decibels was their
measurement, but not everyone in the neighborhood, so Council had to make that decision. He
did not know what the right number was, but there were standards available, and the City needed
to know the standards and then make measurements and look at the alternatives. He did not feel
the Council had support to spend large amounts of money and change priorities which posed a
problem because if the decibels were too high, sound mitigation did not happen, and a dome
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 27
November 14, 2022
could not be put in, then the City was back to square one. There was an opportunity during the
pause in play to get more information and make a more informed decision
Mayor Buck agreed more information was needed. Additionally, the City did not have money to
do everything. Council was thinking comprehensively about the entire community, not just what
to do with the courts right now but also what the City would do about other capital improvement
projects in the future. When the Council returned in January, there would be more information
available on some of the ideas discussed.
Ms. Bennett verified the Council was asking Staff to follow up on the cost estimates and timelines
for the Pilkington site and the dog park site. She understood Council would prefer if it was feasible
and technically correct to pursue an enclosure. She did not know if it was possible to get better
cost estimates and technical feasibility on all three options by early January given the two major
upcoming holidays. Staff could have until the second regularly scheduled meeting in January.
She understood two Councilors wished to close George Rogers Park immediately and another
two ask to pause until there was more information. Would the pause be immediate? She agreed
with Councilor Mboup the City should be a reliable government which used outcome-based
performance measures for making these decisions. Part of the challenge with the present issue
was there was no agreement about what acceptable noise levels were from pickleball, which was
why the Taskforce came up with 150 feet as a proxy. The noise was not industrial; it was
percussive. Staff needed direction about what City Council wanted to do between now and the
second meeting in January.
Councilor Wendland asked if the courts would really be used. It would start raining in another
week and it was dark 14 hours out of the day.
Ms. Bennett clarified Staff needed Council's direction on whether to shut down or pause play
until the second meeting in January. Hours had been reduced significantly. The City could also
eliminate its own programming at the courts.
Mayor Buck stated there was no right answer, which was why the Taskforce looked at the criteria.
The City needed something objective to base a decision on and the Taskforce came up with the
150 feet for outdoor courts. George Rogers Park would never be 150 feet from the homes and
that was what the City had to go on. He supported closing the courts as the City continued looking
into other interim and long-term solutions.
Councilor Wendland believed the Taskforce was tasked with finding a new court location. Part
of the City's mission was to provide a recreational program for the community and 500 to 600
people were involved in pickleball. The City needed to solve the issue. He favored a pause
through the holidays if needed, until the first of January, but the courts should be kept open since
the play would be minimal.
Councilor Rapf said he did not want to close the courts down out of principle. No one would be
playing pickleball or tennis until the first week of February; the courts did not need to be shut down
because no one would be there anyway. Play did not need to be paused. If some people
happened to go out on a nice day, it would be one day for a couple of hours.
Councilor Manz believed pickleball play should be paused.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 27
November 14, 2022
Councilor Mboup agreed it was cold and no one was playing. The courts could be open from 10
an until 2 pm. Shutting down the court was a blanket statement without knowing if mitigation could
be done.
Councilor Verdick stated she favored pausing play. Fellow Councilors thought weather would
dictate everything, but the City had programming planned which meant the weather was good
enough for some play. Pickleball had a greater volume and duration that the sound of the horn
from the train coming through the city. The pickleball sound was high and continuous and lasted
for as long as the courts were opened. She did not think the weather argument was a good
argument. Council could not know what the weather would do, and the City planned to continue
its programming at the courts.
Councilor Rapf stated he would support eliminating the City's programming but keeping the
courts open. Councilor Wendland agreed.
Councilor Verdick believed the City needed to pause play until it could regroup. Perhaps there
was a newer solution people were using that would work. The City had asked the neighbors for
patience throughout the summer and now the City should give the neighbors a pause.
Councilor Rapf agreed programming should be stopped until the City found a solution.
Mayor Buck agreed with Councilor Verdick but understood that was not the majority view of
Council. He did hear support for eliminating the City programming over the winter. The City would
eliminate programming but leave the courts open and take up the issue at its second meeting in
January 2023.
Ms. Bennett noted everyone was hopeful the City would find out whether the dome would work.
Councilor Rapf noted the domes could go up quickly. Councilor Wendland said the City could
go to Tualatin and the Portland Tennis Center to experience the domes.
Mayor Buck verified Staff had received the direction they needed.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council special meeting at 9:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
VaAiSt.A4a
Kari Linder, City Recorder
Approved by the City Council on January 17, 2023
Joseph . Buck, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 27 of 27
November 14, 2022