Loading...
Agenda Item - 2024-04-02 - Number 06.3 - Approval of Meeting Minutes 6.3 O F �s� COUNCIL REPORT CIA2) Subject: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: April 2, 2024 Staff Member: Kari Linder, City Recorder Report Date: March 22, 2024 Department: City Manager's Office Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑X Motion ❑ Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑X Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Approve minutes as written. Recommended Language for Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. Project/ Issue Relates To: NA Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question): ❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑X Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS 1. February 6, 2024, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes 2. February 20, 2024, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes Respect. Excel'ence. Trust. Service. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY ATTACHMENT 1 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 1 MINUTES February 6, 2024 aRrr�o� 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. on Tuesday, February 6, 2024.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 Verdick, Mboup, Corrigan, Afghan, and Wendland. Councilor Rapf was excused. Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney; Kari Linder, City Recorder; Daphne Cissell, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Buck led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT • Howard Cumberland, Provided concerns to the Council regarding the recent ice storm and suggested that an actionable management plan was necessary to deal with the trees because storm damage would occur again in the future. He understood the complexities of the issues and volunteered to help at Council meetings and conduct reviews. 5. PROCLAMATION 5.1 Black History Month. Mayor Buck stated that February was Black History Month and he was honored to join residents of Lake Oswego in celebrating the 2024 theme, "Black Americans and the Arts." This year's theme invited everyone to explore and appreciate the profound impact that Black individuals had on the artistic landscape of the nation. He encouraged the community to take a moment and recognize the creativity, resiliency and cultural contributions of Black Americans in shaping the arts and influencing shared heritage. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 8 February 6, 2024 He announced a celebration at the library on February 28 at 5:30 p.m. for the rescheduled MLK Day celebration. The event would feature artwork created by Lake Oswego youth, Katharine Phelps as emcee, poetry reading, musical performances and more. He also encouraged the community to visit the City's website for an extensive list of events honoring Black History Month as well as the City's proclamation. 6. CONSENT AGENDA 6.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes. December 19, 2023, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes January 2, 2024, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve the meeting minutes as written. END CONSENT Councilor Wendland moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Mboup seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Afghan, Wendland, Verdick, Mboup, and Corrigan voting `aye', (6-0). 7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 8. CONSENT AGENDA— Councilors Only 8.1 Resolution 24-06, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego Approving the Appointments of Alternates to the Transportation Advisory Board and the Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Advisory Board. Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 24-06. Councilor Corrigan moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Verdick seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Councilors Verdick, Mboup, Corrigan, Afghan, and Wendland voting `aye', and Mayor Buck abstained (5-0-1). 9. PUBLIC HEARING 9.1 AP 23-03, An Appeal of the Development Review Commission's Decision to Approve the Type II Tree removal application 499-23-001116-TREE at 2800 Wembley Park Road. City Attorney Osoinach read the quasi-judicial hearing procedures for this appeal and confirmed that none of the Councilors had any ex-parte contacts, bias, or financial conflicts of interest related to this application. She also confirmed there were no challenges to the City Council's right to consider this appeal. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8 February 6, 2024 Associate Planner Cissell presented the Staff report on the appeal of the Development Review Commission's (DRC) approval of tree removal at 2800 Wembley Park Road, currently under review for a single-family dwelling. Her presentation included a review of the approval criteria, findings of fact, and Staffs recommendation to approve the tree removal with the conditions listed in the Staff report. Mayor Buck opened the public hearing and called for the Applicant's presentation. Kelly McCall representing Renaissance Homes, stated she had been working closely with Staff and the Applicant's arborist to ensure that all proper protocols had been met for this application. A total of 12 trees would be removed, 10 for the new development and two for landscaping improvements. The Applicant has agreed to plant all twelve of the mitigation trees that were required. She displayed a map on the screen and noted that the trees marked in red were the trees to be removed. The application was originally submitted to the City on September 1, 2023, and proposed the removal of 14 trees. On September 20, 2023, the City requested additional information after the City's arborist had assessed the trees for removal criteria. She noted that the two trees marked with orange on the map were requested to be retained and withdrawn from the application. One of the trees, a 15-inch lodge pole pine located in the right-of-way, was found by the Applicant's arborist to be in poor condition. However, the City's arborist found the tree to be in fair health and suggested the tree be retained. The other tree, a 34-inch Douglas fir, was in good condition and was a prominent tree in the skyline. The reason for removal was based on the likely construction impacts to the roots from the new home's foundation and retaining wall. The City asked if it was possible to tighten the grading, reduce the length of the retaining wall, and change the foundation in order to preserve the tree. Renaissance Homes performed exploratory trenching around the root ball to see if the City's request would be possible. The arborist found several structural roots located in positions that would allow the roots to remain intact. Therefore, the Applicant reduced the length of the retaining wall and reengineered to accommodate structural bridging over the roots. Both trees were removed from the application and would be retained. Staff did a great job of explaining how the criteria had been met, which were as follows: • The trees would be removed for new development and landscaping, and the criteria had been met for both new development and landscaping purposes. • There would be no negative erosion, surface water, or windbreak impacts. The site would be redeveloped with a special focus on stormwater management and erosion control. Based on the evidence presented, removal of the 12 trees with mitigation measures would not have a significant impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface water, or the protection of adjacent trees. Staff agreed and found the criteria had been met. • There would be no negative impacts to the neighborhood's character or aesthetics. Only nine of the 12 trees met all three criteria to potentially be considered a significant tree. The trees are healthy, over 15 inches, and non-invasive. Staff found that based on all of the evidence submitted none of nine eligible trees qualified as a significant tree based on their significance to the neighborhood, uniqueness of species, or distinctive characteristics. • There would be no significant negative impacts on the removal of greater than 50 percent of a stand of trees. The City found that the proposed removal did not come close to the 50 percent threshold. Only 0.04 percent of the stand of the trees would be affected. • There would be no significant negative impacts on the neighborhood aesthetics or skyline. Some of the trees are visible from the street, but there are prominent and abundant foliage behind the property that fills in the skyline. The neighborhood skyline as a whole would not be significantly affected. The City's arborist stated that the proposed removals would not alter the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8 February 6, 2024 distinctive features or continuity of the neighborhood skyline as viewed from public streets and properties within 300 feet of the site. The Applicants have submitted a mitigation plan to the City.Twelve mitigation trees will be planted on site to replace the 12 trees removed. Two of the trees to be removed have been severely pruned for powerline clearance and now have top-heavy canopies. Pruning for clearance would be an ongoing maintenance issue. The proposal is to plant native Dogwood trees, which have a lower canopy height. The design of the proposed home is original and was created specifically for this lot with the trees in mind. The lot is zoned R-10 and has standard setbacks and zoning codes. The lot is also located in the Uplands R-10 Overlay, which includes additional criteria requiring front yard setback averaging for a minimum of setback of 40 feet, a maximum of permitted height of 30 feet regardless of slope, a 30 percent limit on impervious surface area, and 6/12 side yard setback planes. The irregular shape of the lot makes these criteria difficult to achieve. The plans were developed specifically for this lot, the natural topography, accessibility, and tree preservation. The front yard setback prevents the use of the area where the existing footprint is located, where the trees have acclimated to the existing foundation. This would have been the optimal footprint for tree preservation; however, the Code does not allow for this. The height of the proposed structure is 29-feet 4-inches, so the elevation could not be raised much, as there are no exceptions to the maximum height. The north corner of the site was selected for the stormwater infiltration chambers because it is the lowest elevation on the site and impacts the least number of trees. The pervious paver system for the driveway may not exceed a six percent slope, which also locks in the house's finished floor elevation relative to the street. The stormwater engineer confirmed this location was the most optimal in terms of function and tree preservation. Since the house cannot be raised and the backyard slopes upward, the back and side yard must be regraded and retained to avoid erosion or soil stability issues. The retaining wall, excavation, and regrading would negatively impact three of the trees, necessitating their removal. To meet the limit on impervious surface area, the Applicants would use pervious pavers for most of the driveway and walkways. The side yard setback planes must be compliant on all sides and due to the lot's irregular shape and required setback, shifting the footprint of the house would not comply with the Code and four trees must be removed. The existing driveway approach offered very limited visibility from both directions, which was dangerous. The new driveway would provide safe access to the site with increased visibility and better orientation to the main road. The Applicant should have the right to build within the allowable building envelope on the property as permitted within the zone. The plans have been approved by Planning Staff and all associated Departments. There is no other dwelling configuration that would allow the property owner to fully develop the property as permitted in the zone and protect trees from removal. The trees would decline or die due to construction impacts. Opposing Staff and denying the application would compromise property rights and set a negative precedent for new development and redevelopment projects. She asked the Council to deny the appeal. Mayor Buck called for the Appellant's presentation. Erin Williams disclosed that she was an attorney. However, she represented herself and her opinions were not representative of her employer or any client. She stated that she was looking forward to having a new neighbor, but her five-year old cried upon learning that trees would be cut down, prompting her to take action. The property already has a home and the proposal was to keep 12 of the existing 34 trees. She asked the Council to consider that the tree Code puts the burden on the Applicant, not on the City or the Appellant, to show that the criteria has been met. Several criteria have not been met for specific trees. She also asked the Council to consider the process because the City had taken on a lot of the burden, paying for City-contracted arborists. The alternative would be to put that burden on the Applicant and once the Applicant made an City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8 February 6, 2024 initial showing that the criteria had been met, the City's arborist could confirm. She cited concerns with Staffs findings as follows: • The finding that the removal would not have significant negative impacts — The burden was on the Applicant to determine that the tree removal would not have significant negative impacts on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood. It was not her burden to show the Council the tree removal would change the skyline. She displayed a photograph on the screen showing the property and the trees marked for removal, noting that removing the trees would change the skyline as viewed from the public streets within 100 feet of the property, which was the vantage point the City was required by Code to consider. Removal of the trees would drastically change the skyline from multiple vantage points in the neighborhood. • The purpose of the tree Code was to preserve the wooded character of the city and protect trees as a natural resource. The Applicant had not met the burden of showing the tree removal would not have a negative impact on the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood specifically because it would alter the distinctive features and continuity of the skyline. • The finding that there were no reasonable alternatives — The Applicant had the burden of demonstrating that alternatives were considered for the removal of street trees and that there was no reasonable alternatives available. The 24-inch Douglas fir being removed for a new driveway was a street tree and it was not her obligation or the City's to show there was a reasonable alternative to removing this tree. The Applicant had said flipping the driveway was considered, but that doing so would not protect more trees; adjusting the position of the house was not feasible given other constraints; and that the width of the driveway and garage were standard. There was no discussion by the Applicant about whether a narrower driveway would be reasonable or feasible or if that was ever considered. No evidence was presented to support the claim that the proposed width of the driveway was standard. Written testimony included statements that narrow driveways were common in the neighborhood. She asked the Council to consider that a standard width driveway did not correspond to market acceptance. The Applicant had failed to meet the burden to consider a narrower driveway as a reasonable alternative or to demonstrate that a narrower driveway would not be acceptable to the market. The Applicant had also asserted that ORS197.307 regarding a lack of clear objectives applied. The Council had received legal advice about the scope of ORS197.307. She was talking about trees in the driveway and landscaping, not trees that would prevent the home from being built. She suggested further consultation with the City Attorney to determine whether ORS197.307 was applicable to this case. She hoped that the recent media about the damaging effects of trees would be kept out of this decision because the trees proposed for removal were healthy trees, not trees that had been deemed hazardous. Councilor Mboup asked Ms. Williams to point out the evidence in the record that showed the proposal did not meet the City's Code. Ms. Williams stated the Applicant did not show that removal of the trees would not have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics. The evidence included many photographs showing the removal of trees would change the continuity of the skyline and the distinctive features of the neighborhood. Written testimony stated the trees on the property were a distinctive feature because there were so few evergreen trees in the area. Granting the permit would conflict with the City Code because the Applicant did not meet their burden of proof and the record includes evidence to the contrary. Additionally, the Applicant did not demonstrate that no reasonable alternative was available, so granting the permit would be inconsistent with the City Code. Councilor Mboup responded that he had spoken to several people who could not tell what species the trees were. As a lawyer, Ms. Williams understood that the Council was obligated to follow the Code and the Code sided with the Applicant. He was City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8 February 6, 2024 hoping Ms. Williams would respond to the comments made by the Applicant's lawyer, who demonstrated there were no problems. Ms. Williams did not provide any evidence that was contrary to the Applicant's defense. Ms. Williams confirmed that Councilor Mboup was specifically referencing Criterion 3 regarding significant negative impact. She displayed two photographs and explained how the skyline would change when the trees were removed. Councilor Wendland noted that this appeal only addressed the removal of 11 trees and asked what would happen with the rest of the trees that were marked for removal. Ms. Williams understood some trees were being removed under the Type I permitting process, so were not part of this appeal. Other trees were being removed without a permit because permits were not required for trees that were invasive or were below a certain size. Only 12 trees would not be removed. Associate Planner Cissell clarified that permits were required for invasive trees, but the permitting process was different. Mayor Buck confirmed there was no public testimony and called for the Applicant's rebuttal. Jamie Howsley attorney with Jordan Ramis for Renaissance, said he believed the DRC's recommendation to City Council, their seven to zero approval, and the thorough findings and testimony provided a valid reason to support Staff's decision to allow removal of the trees as proposed. The Appellant questioned the process by which the City conducts an arborist study. The burden of proof is on the Applicant, who must have their own arborist at the site. However, the City's arborist has the final word on whether the information provided by the Applicant's arborist is correct. The Appellant kept making statements that were not focused on the criteria and subjectively related to how the trees fit in the skyline. There was no evidence in the findings of the neighborhood skyline introduced by the Appellant. The Applicant had photographic evidence showing the vast majority of trees on the site would remain, leaving the skyline's prominence. No evidence in the record suggests otherwise. One of the trees mentioned by the Appellant fell during a storm and was no longer part of the application. The Applicant also considered alternatives for the driveway, including moving the house, which would create more impact on the trees. The driveway needed to be located in the proposed area due to the topography of the property to ensure safety and adequate drainage. The project includes a reduction of the driveway width by 7-feet 5-inches from the maximum allowed by Code. The Douglas fir sits in the middle of the location proposed for the driveway. Moving the driveway elsewhere on the site would impact more trees and would not allow for adequate stormwater management. None of the evidence suggested the Applicant had not met their burden under the criteria. He requested the Council deny the appeal, support Option 1, and move forward with the findings as recommended in the Staff report. City Attorney Osoinach reminded the Council that the new evidence regarding the reason for the appeal could not be considered. Mayor Buck closed the public hearing. City Attorney Osoinach confirmed that the findings on Page 3 erroneously stated all 11 trees were native, but the trees were a mix of native and non-native species. Councilor Afghan asked if the three street trees were unhealthy. He understood the trees had been trimmed to protect the power lines. Associate Planner Cissell responded that the trees had a poor structure, which required pruning. The trees were also in poor condition. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8 February 6, 2024 Councilor Afghan asked how the Council was to decide if removing the trees would have negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. Associate Planner Cissell explained the Council needed to rely on what the neighborhood looked like and consider the skyline from a variety of perspectives. When foliage surrounds a property, the impact is reduced because the skyline from afar would remain intact for the most part. People who live in the neighborhood look at the trees more often and from a closer perspective. Looking at the trees from a distance showed the skyline better. The Applicant would retain a group of trees in the front, which prevented a significant impact on the skyline. Councilor Mboup said the Code required 12 new trees to be planted to replace the 12 trees that were removed. He asked if the Council could require more than 12 new trees to mitigate the impacts. Mayor Buck agreed that there were no good reasonable alternatives for the driveway, but he believed there would be a significant adverse impact on the skyline, which required additional mitigation.The five trees in front would have the largest impact. The arborist determined that 12 trees could fit on the site, which was more than what the Applicant had proposed. He suggested a tree fund in lieu of replanting the five trees in the front. Councilor Afghan believed removing the trees would impact the neighborhood. Many trees were being cut. However, the design and layout were changed to accommodate the trees and the Applicant considered the Code requirements. The Code required the removed trees to be replaced and that the replacement trees be of certain species. He believed the tree Code should be changed. He also agreed that the five trees in the front changed the character of the neighborhood, so more mitigation was reasonable. Associate Planner Cissell stated that one of the five trees was in poor condition and did not meet the first three elements of significance. Deputy City Attorney Boone advised the Council to find out if the trees were considered significant due to one of the conditions listed in the criteria. If a tree was found to be significant and the skyline would be impacted by its removal, the tree must be replaced with another tree. The only possible enhanced mitigation would be through a condition of approval, which must be based on a finding that the trees had an extraordinary impact on the neighborhood. This would be above what was considered normal removal under the criteria. The Code states that if there is no reasonable alternative to removing a significant tree, Criterion 3 did not have to be met. However, a mitigation tree would still be required. Councilor Wendland moved to amend the findings (page 3 line 9, sub-section a) to 11 mitigation trees, nine of which shall be native. Mayor Buck seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Afghan, Wendland, Verdick, Mboup, and Corrigan voting `aye', (6-0). Councilor Wendland moved with City Attorney recommendation, to adopt findings, to affirm the Commission's decision to approve the tree removal application 499-23-001116- TREE, with conditions of approval, and adopt findings, conclusions, and order (Attachment 1). Mayor Buck seconded the motion. A roll call vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Verdick, Mboup, Corrigan, Afghan, and Wendland voting `aye', (6-0) City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8 February 6, 2024 10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Mayor Buck reported that the short legislative session had begun and he attended with members of the Metro Mayors Consortioum advocating for Measure 110 and housing. He also reported that the Youth Leadership Council and the Happy Valley Youth Leadership Council co- hosted the Oregon Youth Summit at Willamette University. After the summit, the council members went to Senate President Wagner's office to hand deliver the letter signed by the City Council, school board and Youth Council regarding a flavored tobacco ban. Councilor Afghan reported that as a living tribute from Linda Hartling, a grove of 100 trees will be planted in the Willamette National Forest in memory of Mayor Buck, city workers, electricians, emergency services, kind citizens who helped each other during the storm, and all friends of trees. 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS City Manager Bennett reported that she would send a letter to the superintendent with a copy of the City Council's goal related to creating a west side community center. She understood the Facilities Planning Committee would discuss the future of Lake Grove Elementary at their next two meetings and she wanted to make sure the Committee was aware of the goal and invite the Committee to discuss a joint project with the City at an open meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council meeting at 6:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kari Linder, City Recorder Approved by the City Council on {insert approval date}. Joseph M. Buck, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8 February 6, 2024 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 20, 2024 aRrr�o� 6. CALL TO ORDER, CITY COUNCIL Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:58 p.m. on Tuesday, February 20, 2024. The meeting was held both via video conferencing and in-person in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Buck, Councilors Mboup, Rapf, Corrigan (via video conferencing), Afghan, Wendland, and Verdick (via video conferencing) Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney; Kari Linder, City Recorder; Shawn Cross, Finance Director; Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director. Others Present: Abby Beissenger, Consultant with Dudek (via video conferencing); Morgan Holen, Contract Arborist with Morgan Holen & Associates 7. PUBLIC COMMENT No Public Comment was provided. 8. CONSENT AGENDA 8.1 WO 337, Group 2 Pathways Project. Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign a Professional Services Contract with Harper Houf Peterson Righellis, Inc. (HHPR) in the amount of$896,884 for Engineering Services for the Group 2 Pathways Project (WO 337). 8.2 Resolution 24-03, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease Between the Lake Oswego Preservation Society and the City for the Lease of 40 Wilbur Street, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 24-03. 8.3 2024 City Council Goals and Initiatives. Motion: Move to adopt the City Council 2024 Goals and Initiatives. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 8 February 20, 2024 END CONSENT Councilor Wendland moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Afghan seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Mboup, Rapf, Corrigan, Afghan, Wendland, and Verdick voting `aye,' (7-0). 9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 10. PUBLIC HEARING 10.1 Resolution 24-07, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Adjusting the Budget for the Biennium Commencing July 1, 2023, by Adopting a Supplemental Budget, Approving Resources/Requirements, and Making Appropriations. Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney, reviewed the hearing procedures and asked if any Councilor had a financial conflict of interest declare. None were heard. Shawn Cross, Finance Director, presented the Council Report and noted the requested adjustment was a normal budget supplement that was often necessary at the beginning of a budget cycle. The adjustment would roll over authorization for capital projects that were not completed in the last budget cycle and move funds from Contingency to the Systems Development Charge (SDC) fund to increase funding for the Jean Road project necessitated by a change in scope. In addition, the request would authorize movement of funds from Contingency to the Water Fund to purchase and install commercial meters as part of the Automated Meter Infrastructure (AMI) project. The AMI project had moved faster than anticipated, and the City had moved from residential meters to commercial meters. The authorization would enable the Water fund to purchase and install the commercial meters. Mayor Buck opened the public hearing, confirmed there was no public testimony, and closed the public hearing. Councilor Afghan moved to adopt Resolution 24-07. Councilor Rapf seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Mboup, Rapf, Corrigan, Afghan, Wendland, and Verdick voting `aye,' (7-0). Council took a recess from 4:02 p.m. to 4:10 p.m. 11. STUDY SESSION 11.1 Urban and Community Forest Plan Update. Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director, introduced the consultants, Abby Beissenger and Morgan Holen who worked on the draft plan with City Staff, noting the plan was an early draft and did not include an executive summary or a complete introduction. Some information presented was out of date but included as placeholder information. The Council's City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8 February 20, 2024 packet included an attachment with public comments received in January and a summary table of the comments. Abby Beissenger, Consultant, Dudek, presented the draft Urban and Community Forestry Plan (UCFP) via PowerPoint, reviewing what the plan could help the City accomplish, the steps to developing the plan, the draft vision statement, key findings, strategic plan, as well as Tree Code recommendations. An overview of the public review process was provided along with a summary of comments from the public as well as boards and commissions. Council feedback on key discussion points noted in the meeting materials was as follows with responses to Councilor questions as noted: • Does the vision statement of the UCFP reflect the ideal vision for the state of Lake Oswego's Urban Forest? Ms. Beissenger noted the definition of urban forest was included in Chapter 3 of the draft plan. A community forest was intended to represent all the trees within the urban ecosystem, not only the trees, but the ecosystem itself. All the trees within Lake Oswego would be comprised of the community forest. Mayor Buck confirmed the terms, "urban forest" and "community forest" were synonymous. Councilors suggested including the word "managed" in the vision statement as "protected" could be a one-sided term. The City valued trees and wanted to protect trees, but a forest had to be managed as an entity. Sustainable forest ecosystems require management. The forest was what mattered, not individual trees. Invasive species and non-native plants had to be controlled as part of forest management and should be a part of the vision statement. Councilors believed the word "urban" should be part of the vision statement. The City tried to create harmony between the elements that made up the urban forest and the elements necessary for the welfare of the society that inhabited the area, such as housing, transportation, and other critical infrastructure. The guiding principles included some of that thought, but it should be part of the vision statement. Leaving the urban element out of the vision failed to recognize what it was. Throughout the plan the term "urban forest" was used, but the vision statement used the term "community forest", which was the only time the term was used outside of the title of the plan. • Are there additional key findings in the UCFP that should be highlighted? Councilor Rapf noted the third point on the key findings slide should be amplified.The City should focus on combatting misinformation and sharing information more regularly and comprehensively. Councilors agreed key findings should include recognition of the previous plan, which had been thoughtful and well implemented. The draft report showed that Lake Oswego's tree canopy had increased from the turn of the century because of the good work done by the Council's predecessors, the City team, and the community at large; the tree canopy had increased despite redevelopment. Councilor Mboup believed the key findings should ask the community to act, and activism should be practical and involve more than protesting tree removal. Residents should join in work parties to remove invasive species and help to manage the forest. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8 February 20, 2024 Director Numanoglu clarified the City's tree maintenance responsibilities, noting that the City did receive calls from homeowners asking the City to remove a tree in the right-of-way in front of their houses, but the City did not have the resources to take care of every single tree in the right-of- way. It was not clear to residents whose responsibility it was to care for and maintain those trees. The Public Works Department did a good job of helping people out in some situations, particularly in situations where the tree was a hazard to the public right-of-way, but the City did need to be clearer on what those responsibilities were. In addition, when the City planted street trees it would maintain them for a few years, but eventually the tree would be the responsibility of the abutting property owner, which was not clear. Councilor Afghan believed the second key finding, "Lake Oswego has a dense canopy and should prioritize canopy management and maintenance" was an outcome. He would prefer to have a finding that referenced climate change and what the City would like in the future versus protecting what it has now. Mayor Buck noted regrowth was referenced in the strategic plan portion of the draft. Councilor Afghan replied that the verbiage of the finding may cause trouble in the future with voters who may argue the City did not fulfill its promise to protect the City's canopy. Councilor Wendland believed the priority should be forest management rather than canopy management. All the key findings were tree related, and there was more to a forest than trees. One key finding in the draft report data was that Lake Oswego had an invasive species problem, and those species were killing the trees everyone was trying to save. If that was not highlighted as a key finding, then the City was not doing its job but looking myopically at one part of the forest. Councilor Rapf agreed with Councilors Wendland and Afghan, adding that the strategic plan should pull up to 30,000 feet and take a more holistic approach that included wildlife, water, and invasive species. The word "protect" put the City on an awkward path long term. He preferred focusing on "management" because it encompassed protection in certain circumstances and conservation in others. "Conservation," was another word that gave the City flexibility. Morgan Holen, Contract Arborist, Morgan Holen & Associates, clarified that the State of the Forest Report did include a chapter on major findings about threats, which included invasive species, wildfire, drought stress, development. The key findings in the draft plan before the Council had more to do with what Dudek learned from public outreach and research. Ms. Beissenger added that the key findings in the draft report built upon the great work done in the State of the Urban Forest. The draft took that information and moved forward with the key findings learned through the analysis where the City could address or adjust its resources to move forward with a strategic plan. The plan did a pest readiness assessment to identify how prepared the City was, and there were actions regarding climate change as well. The key findings were the bold summary statements; each finding had a paragraph explanation. What the Councilors were reading now was a snippet of what was encompassed within each of the findings. Councilor Wendland stated that if the focus of the issue was not included, people would not have trust in the report. The feedback from special interest groups was reflected throughout the report, but those interests were not necessarily a scientific method of gathering information. The Council represented all of Lake Oswego and had to look holistically at what people wanted the City to do to manage the urban forest, which included fire prevention and falling trees. The key findings addressed trees, but not the issues Councilors were discussing. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8 February 20, 2024 City Manager Bennett suggested the Councilors consider the intentions of those who participated in public comment. Mayor Buck commented that everyone had equal opportunity to participate in putting the plan together. The Council should focus on what was in the plan and good feedback on its contents. It should not assign motives to the people who participated in putting the plan together. Councilors agreed the report included information about threats to the urban forest, but it did seem obtuse to not include threats as a key finding given that the changing climate and conditions and organic threats to the forest were a large part of how the City should approach management. Some of the findings could be tweaked to do a better job of highlighting what was in the report and the public's concerns around climate change, disease, pests, and so forth, as well as the role that the community and individuals within the community could play to take better responsibility. Councilors discussed whether the key findings adequately reflected other important goals for the City, such as housing. The community at large wanted to find ways to accommodate growth and change in a manner that was consistent with good urban forest management and stewardship principles. The community was passionate about housing and the urban forest, so communication and education were needed to bring everyone onboard to find symmetry between the goals to move the city forward in a cohesive way. Mayor Buck noted needed housing was in state statute, so "needed housing" with marks diminished the term. An asterisk could be used to define the term per state statute and definition. Within the details of the third finding was language about needing to make the Tree Code clear and objective, but that should be its own finding for organizational purposes. The third finding seemed like a big finding with a lot of disconnected parts. • Do the guiding principles of the strategic plan reflect the Lake Oswego's community's values and priorities for the Urban Forest?Are there specific values and priorities that could be better represented? Councilor Rapf believed property rights should be added to the fifth guiding principle so that it read, "balances trees, housing needs, infrastructure, and property rights." Councilor Mboup did not believe the phrase needed to be added because property rights were protected by the Constitution. People could buy property in Lake Oswego and if they wished to cut a tree down, there was a process they had to follow. Strategies in the plan outlined what the City would do to reflect those who wanted to protect trees as well as the needs of property owners and developers, and what was necessary to increase housing. Councilor Rapf believed property owners had to be included in the fifth guiding principle, so residents understood the City had considered the issue from all angles. Mayor Buck said he understood Councilor Rapf's point, adding it was an issue of balance. Councilor Corrigan suggested the fourth guiding principle be changed to say, "a resilient urban forest that combats climate change and is well prepared." The change would acknowledge the 2024 Council Goal to combat climate change and strengthen the community's resilience to climate impacts. The statement should also make some kind of acknowledgement that trees absorb carbon from the atmosphere which helped to reduce greenhouse gases, a commitment the City had made and was required by the State. Ms. Beissenger noted the definition of number four included reduced urban heat islands, increased energy efficiency, and resilience to storms, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8 February 20, 2024 draught, heat, pests. Carbon was not specifically mentioned in the definition but could be added to the guiding principle. Councilor Wendland suggested Guiding Principle 5 should be inclusive of everyone in the city. The phrase "housing needs" did not address the need to balance trees and infrastructure. Businesses and other entities, such as the school district and the City, should be reflected. Further, he was not sure what "enhanced quality of life for community members" meant. Ms. Beissenger replied the phrase specifically referred to the benefits and services provided by the urban forest, such as the urban heat island effect and stormwater reduction. The actions within that specific guiding principle discussed the need for community education, increasing internship programs, community outreach, and things along those lines. Councilors noted many specific action items were noted below guiding principles, but the principles should be more specific to make it clear what the City was trying to accomplish without setting off any triggers to make people feel their lives were being too encroached upon. The Council discussed the need for an action that identified items with budget impacts. Some items in the strategic plan came within the current scope of operations, but other additions should include a budget for the planning purposes. In addition, the final document should define timeframes, such as short-term versus medium-term. The plan should include ways to incorporate the community to create lifelong stewards of the forest, perhaps through a partnership with the School District. The plan identified areas of town lacking in canopy and where the Tree Fund could be used for mitigation, especially around stream corridors. Items 1(d) and 1(a) both involved the budget and could be one item. • Are the recommended amendments to the Tree Code in alignment with community values and priorities for the Urban Forest? Councilor Wendland commented that the Tree Code did not seem user-friendly, even with the changes suggested in the draft. Director Numanoglu replied the draft was not intended to be a full audit of the Code but a high-level look at the recommendations. A discussion about necessary changes to ensure clear and objective standards would take place later this year once the Urban and Community Forestry Plan was complete. Ms. Beissenger clarified that the proposed minimum canopy retention included in the draft was based on comparisons to other jurisdictions that had recently imposed minimum standards to maintain existing canopies. Mayor Buck noted the draft minimum canopy retention proposal did not include residential, but stated, "commercial, multifamily, and industrial." Ms. Beissenger said those were the requirements for new development in commercial, industrial, and multifamily zones in Renton's and Vancouver's Code. Director Numanoglu added the standard would be difficult to administer on residential properties. Councilors suggested items 1 and 5 in the proposed Tree Code changes, both of which addressed mitigation being combined and discussed strategies to mitigate tree removal that would offer residents options. Only 9 percent of residents now paid into the Tree Fund in lieu of planting a new tree. If that option was offered to more people, the City could create a larger fund and maximize its efforts towards its overall goals. Mitigation alternatives could strike a balance to offer City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8 February 20, 2024 people alternatives, and the Code could offer alternatives in terms of heights and setbacks, so people pursue common sense preservation of onsite trees. The fee-in-lieu of mitigation should be financially on par with planting a tree and more transparency around tree cutting permits would be useful. Councilors were pleased a mitigation monitoring plan was included in the draft. Director Numanoglu noted that if mitigation was associated with a building permit or development, Staff verified all mitigation trees were planted. If mitigation was part of a commercial, multifamily, or a minor development, there was a one-year guarantee, but there was no program to follow up on tree plantings to assess survival rates. City Manager Bennett commented that the City Council did not need to decide on the outcome of any suggested Code changes this evening but provide Staff with feedback on whether the right topics were included in the draft. When the Council looked more closely at minimum canopy retention or considered increased tree removal mitigation requirements, it would have the opportunity to lay a policy filter on top of the draft code. The Council had to weigh policy objectives against practicality and affordability, and there would be tradeoffs. Mayor Buck asked if increasing permit types that require mitigation was one of the intended actions. Director Numanoglu replied the City could require mitigation for all permit types, but Staff did not know whether it would be practical and there were tradeoffs. Ms. Holen added that Action Item 2(o) required mitigation trees to be planted for all tree removal permit types with viable planting areas on site or allow payment into the Tree Fund if Staff determined there was insufficient space to replant. Action Item 1(g) was a short-term action to establish guidelines for utilizing the Tree Fund for tree planting, care, and a program to support tree giveaways to private property owners, such as the Westlake Homeowners Association. Councilor Wendland said the draft needed to detail logistics of implementation. He understood the changes to the Tree Code were part of the Forestry Plan, but it took the focus away from the forest. Mayor Buck added that the point of this plan was management of the urban forest. The Sustainability and Climate Action Plan focused on climate change. While the plans worked together, the Forestry Plan focused on the health of the urban forest. Director Numanoglu said the Council's feedback would be reflected in the next draft presented to the Council in May. The Council's comments were like those offered by other groups, though the discussion by Council was more in depth. 12. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor Rapf stated that the Audit Committee had met earlier in the day to discuss the 2023- 2024 audit of City Finances. The City came through with glowing results from Marino and Company thanks to Brad Stephens and Shawn Cross and their financial stewardship. Councilor Verdick provided an update on Long Range Facilities Planning Committee for the School District. She was honored to sit on the Committee, learn about the improvements that had been made to some of the schools, as well as what improvements were still needed and/or planned. She had been on a tour of Forest Hills Elementary and planned to tour Lake Grove. She had also toured River Grove, which would be a fantastic new elementary school set to be completed for the next school year. The Committee discussed what should be done with the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8 February 20, 2024 property vacated by the bus barn at Lake Grove, which could potentially include the use of urban renewal funds for a community center/library. The School District first needed to determine what was in its best interest and how it wished to move forward and she was looking forward to further discussions. Mayor Buck stated that he has been following the short list legislative session closely and the city has been engaged on Measure 110 and the housing discussions. There is still a special sub- committee meeting on transportation and will be providing communications in the future at the conclusion of the joint sub-committee sessions in anticipation of 2025. City Manager Bennett also added that the Police Chief testified in support of Representative Nguyen's bill to form a committee for e-bikes, scooters, etc. and the regulations around electronic mobility. Mayor Buck went on to say that the Metro Mayors have been engaged in the housing discussion and met with a wide array of legislators on Measure 110 and housing. Those are topics that continue to be discussed and worked through, but not necessarily in public meetings. 13. REPORTS OF OFFICERS City Manager Bennett noted that there is also a proposed temporary fix for recreation immunity in the legislature defining activities that are clearly recreational. In conclusion, she noted that Megan Phelan will be City Manager Pro Tern in her absence next week, beginning on Monday. 14. ADJOURNMENT, CITY COUNCIL Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council meeting at 6:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kari Linder, City Recorder Approved by the City Council on {insert approval date}. Joseph M. Buck, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8 February 20, 2024