Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2024-06-04 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2024 aRrr�o� 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. on Tuesday, June 4, 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 Corrigan, Afghan, Wendland, and Mboup (via video conferencing). Councilors Rapf and Verdick were excused. Staff Present: Megan Phelan, Assistant City Manager; Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney; Kari Linder, City Recorder; Erica Rooney, City Engineer I Public Works Director; Sonja Johnson, Associate Engineer; Amanda Watson, Sustainability Program Manager 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Buck led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PRESENTATIONS 4.1 National Gun Violence Awareness Day: June 7. Mayor Buck proclaimed Friday, June 7 as National Gun Violence Awareness Day in Lake Oswego. The full text proclamation was available on the City's website. Cara Chen, Students Demand Action (SDA), spoke about the importance of Gun Violence Awareness Day and noted the impacts of gun violence throughout the community. Gun violence was often preventable through measures such as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) that allow courts to temporarily remove firearms from those who may harm themselves or others. Such common-sense gun measures were being considered at national, state, and local levels. Localities could help to prevent gun violence with upstream mental healthcare access and a strong sense of community as well as shelters and law enforcement response. During the upcoming long legislative session, members of SDA would advocate for a Disarm Hate Bill with members of Oregon's State Legislature. The bill would prohibit those convicted of violent hate crimes from purchasing/possessing firearms to reduce hate-based violence. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10 June 4, 2024 Mayor Buck recognized members of SDA present and noted he often saw its members advocating in Salem. He asked Ms. Chen to let him know what he could do to assist in the organization's legislative efforts. 4.2 Juneteenth: June 19. Mayor Buck proclaimed Juneteenth on June 19. The City and community partners, including Respond to Racism, would host an event on Sunday, June 16 from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. at Millenium Plaza Park. The event program included a keynote speaker, remarks from Councilor Mboup, and a special remembrance for recently deceased community member Bruce Poinsette. More information and the signed proclamation were available on the City's website. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT • Edward Conrad, testified about concerns regarding Lake Oswego's dam, which was classified as a significant risk. While the dam had passed its most recent inspection in March, the engineer/inspector did find vegetation in some of the concrete cracks and suggested the City remove the vegetation. Mr. Conrad had reached out to City Staff confirmed the vegetation would be removed. 6. CONSENT AGENDA 6.1 Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro for Disaster Debris Management Grant. Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign an IGA in substantially the form attached with Metro for disbursement of Disaster Debris Management Grant funds. 6.2 Approval of Meeting Minutes. April 16, 2024, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes May 20, 2024, Draft Special Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve the meeting minutes as written. END CONSENT Councilor Wendland moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Corrigan seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Corrigan, Afghan, Wendland, and Mboup voting `aye', (5-0). 7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 June 4, 2024 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 8.1 Resolution 24-23, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Approving the Update of the City of Lake Oswego Emergency Operations Plan. Megan Phelan, Assistant City Manager, presented the updated Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), noting the current revision reflected the 2023 Council goal to ensure a safe, secure, and prepared community. The EOP was part of the City's comprehensive emergency management approach to mitigate, respond to, and recover from major hazards and threats, although the City recognized overall preparedness responsibility rests with the community. The Emergency Management Executive Committee and department stakeholders worked with a consultant on the update which included a basic plan detailing roles supported by 18 emergency support functions (ESF) that provided specific guidance in areas such as communications, transportation, and hazardous materials, plus a new cyber/infrastructure function. Staff would continue reviewing and comprehensively updating the plan approximately every five years. Councilors discussed the need to stress to residents their individual responsibility in preparing for emergencies and suggested the City put inserts in publications about ways citizens could be better prepared and what items they should keep in their home. Clarifying questions from Councilors were addressed by Staff as noted: • The current EOP was available via the City's website and the updated plan would be posted as well. Hard copies were kept at the City's Emergency Operation Center. • Staff could facilitate a table at the September Emergency Preparedness Fair to introduce people to the concept of the EOP and how it was used to manage and respond to emergencies. That same month, Bonnie Hirshberger, provided an insert in He11oLO related to emergency management. Ms. Hirshberger was also a key partner in reviewing the updates to the EOP and communication through her was another option for citizen information. • The cost to complete the EOP was $60,000, which was absorbed by the City Manager Office budget. • The EOP was a specific operational guide for internal operations and Staff. However, there were training opportunities for the City's partner organizations that could be explored as part of the adoption of the EOP. Staff was working on the"Iron 24"fall exercise, a state-coordinated tabletop focused on earthquake response two weeks after the event. The City would bring in partners like the Red Cross and School District to coordinate jointly on the tabletop exercise, as it had done with past tabletop exercises. • In terms of the community focus, Staff believed that the City should continue to attend neighborhood meetings, HOA events/meetings, and take every opportunity available to talk about the importance of community preparedness, and Neighborhood Enhancement Grant programs allowed neighborhoods to purchase supplies and otherwise be more organized. In addition, the Red Cross had published a good document about how to be more prepared at home that the City could distribute to residents. • Staff worked closely with Prep LO and the State was rolling out a new program through the Office of Emergency Management that would replace a neighborhood program. The City appreciated the efforts of Prep LO and its work to engage and organize the community. • Staff believed the welfare of working teams was part of the ESF checklist. Each ESF had an associated checklist cover sheet that prompted the start of thinking about things that needed to be acquired and/or advanced to the extent possible. The checklists were different depending on the nature of the incident. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 June 4, 2024 • City facilities had what was called a KnoxBox where keys were maintained, and the Fire Department had access. City Hall was also the Police Department and the Department had to the facility if needed. There was generator backup power at the facility, so access cards currently used to access the building should be operational. Redundancy was key because the City could not assume it could rely upon one answer. It had to think about what the next best option and two or three steps was out from there as well. • Two years ago, Staff worked with the Chamber of Commerce to create a business emergency preparedness plan because the sooner businesses can get back up on their feet, the more successful they would be in an emergency. Using that as an inspiration, Staff did work towards drafting a resident guide about some things people should think of, do, and prepare in advance such as supplies households should have on hand and knowing how to turn off the gas and water. However, what was created was almost identical to the information published by the Red Cross and Staff was concerned about coming out with different recommendations to the Red Cross. Because the Red Cross already mass produced the brochures and the City received the brochures for free, handing out the Red Cross brochures seemed the most economical way to go. In addition, the Red Cross was really the expert in terms of emergency management practices. Councilor Afghan moved to adopt Resolution 24-23. Councilor Corrigan seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Corrigan, Afghan, Wendland, and Mboup voting `aye', (5-0). 9. STUDY SESSIONS 9.1 Chapter 52 and 38 Code Amendments Relating to Stormwater. Sonja Johnson, Associate Engineer, presented the Council Report via PowerPoint, noting the drivers for the proposed Code changes were that the City received an MS-4 stormwater permit and was updating its Stormwater Management Manual (SWMM), so Staff wished to reduce conflicts between the SWMM and Municipal Code. The proposed changes removed sections of Code that belonged elsewhere, updated sections to match current policy and procedures, removed sections that duplicated definitions and requirements already stated in other chapters, and updated terminology. In addition, Chapters were renumbered to improve organization and instances of outdated language were removed or revised. Councilors discussed the need to complete the process required to amend the Code and update the SWMM while conducting targeting, discretionary outreach. Clarifying questions from Councilors were addressed by Ms. Johnson and Public Works Director Erica Rooney as noted: • No substantial changes were proposed, and the effort was a simplification of existing processes to be compliant with the stormwater permit. • The City had additional stormwater requirements since 2016, but in general most requirements reverted to the stormwater permit. That permit, which the City had had since the 1990s, was renewed every four to five years. The City received its latest permit in 2021 and had spent the last couple of years updating other programs to match the requirements in the newest permit. There were a couple of changes within the permit that required the City to add additional requirements to its SWMM. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 June 4, 2024 • The outlined enforcement was consistent with State enforcement. The permit required escalating enforcement for violators. Education was the first step in enforcement and if that did not result in the desired effect, then there was a penalty or other means. The City had the ability to remove access to its stormwater system in cases of an illicit discharge. • Stormwater was disposed of in a couple of ways. Developments were required to manage stormwater, so it was released slowly, instead of overwhelming the system. A grassy natural area absorbed water whereas stormwater would run off a paved area within a couple of minutes. The City had stormwater facilities which removed solid particulates like sediment, dirt, or other pollutants, and the stormwater then went into the public stormwater system which went into a stream Stormwater was not sent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant and could not be sent to the plant because it would cause a lot of overflows as seen with Portland's combined system. Lake Oswego had a separate system in which stormwater went into the lake, rivers, or streams or it infiltrated into the ground. • Lake Oswego's permit required the City to capture 80 percent of the annual average runoff which was calculated using models based on the average annual impervious area in the city and the average annual precipitation. • The revisions should make it easier for people to understand the stormwater requirements. The SWMM included all the procedures that needed to be followed and no one should have to worry about following the Code when designing stormwater facilities. With things in both places, there was always the chance that the manual said one thing while the Code said another. The revisions reduced those conflicts and attempted to create industry standard language so that people understood what stormwater was and that stormwater system referred the public stormwater system and not the rivers and streams. The City had a surface water management system that included the public stormwater system plus the rivers and streams, but when stormwater management primarily referred to the public stormwater system. The changes proposed to the Code would provide that language. • The City did not have physical stormwater systems everywhere, and the SWMM and MS-4 permits took into account and gave the City direction on what it needed to do so that it made incremental improvements and when individual houses came in, they accounted for their stormwater, which was not done 30 years ago. Now that houses are bigger and there was not as much yard on some lots for water to infiltrate, the City needed to be more conscientious, effective, strategic in the management of stormwater. The SWMM and Code were tools to help ensure effective management. Staff believed the City was making progress. Though there was capital work that needed to be done, it needed to ensure stormwater management for individual developments to account and manage runoff from development in the best way possible. • The MS-4 permit required annual reporting which included testing of the city's streams. Associate Engineer Johnson collected data samples all year long from the stormwater system so the City could track progress over time. Staff could return to the Council at another time to discuss the annual reports and what the reports showed. • Staff did not know what kind of feedback to expect from the public but would undertake public outreach to avoid surprising the public and the business community. The changes were meant to not make it harder for anyone, including developers, to do the work they had done before and instead would clean up the Code by making it less cumbersome and putting all the requirements in the SWMM. The Code adoption would require a public hearing and Staff wanted to make sure the changes did not catch anyone by surprise. • Staff would ask the Chamber of Commerce to put information in its newsletters for various businesses in the area. When the SWMM was updated, Staff would provide notification of the updates and invite feedback from the building community. The building community would not necessarily be as interested in the Code changes as the SWMM updates. When the SWMM City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 June 4, 2024 was updated in 2018, Staff reached out to the business and developer community for comments and would do the same thing for this update sometime in the fall. • Staff could tailor the public outreach to the Homebuilders Association and other stakeholders such as those who came in for stormwater permits and keep the planned online comment form to make it easier to provide comments. • Previously, Staff had spoken before Council about a Code update regarding the Commercial and Industrial Business Inspection program, a state requirement that meant Staff had to visit facilities and ensure hazardous waste was stored properly and the business was not cross connection. That was a different update and not part of what was before the Council this evening. 9.2 Electric Vehicle Charging Strategy. Amanda Watson, Sustainability Program Manager, presented the Council Report via PowerPoint, providing background on the reasons for the strategy, and outlining the goals in the City's Sustainability and Climate Action Plan that provided a framework for the strategy. The strategies presented related to expanding access to electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure for the community as a whole. Electrifying the City fleet was a separate project. • The presentation reviewed the project's objectives and provided an overview of the utility side and customer side of EV charging infrastructure, the three levels of charging and associated costs, charging speeds, usage, power requirements, the current state of EV adoption and charging within the city, public feedback, and expected growth of EVs. The strategies outlined attempted to take an equitable approach that looked at where charging was most needed and looked at how to address gaps in access to reliable and convenient charging to best meet the City's goals. Staff determined Level 2 charging best supported the balance of speed and price to meet the needs of the public and workforce, and it was important to match technology with the specific needs of the community using the infrastructure as well as size constraints. • Draft actions were placed into three categories based on the primary role of the City to educate, enable, and install EV infrastructure, and included two Code-related actions that would require engagement with the Planning Commission. The presentation reviewed expenses associated with installing EV chargers at existing City-owned facilities, noting installation was already planned for new City facilities such as the Lake Oswego Recreation and Aquatic Center and Rassekh Park. • Staff recommended the City pursue all the outlined strategies, except for the right-of-way program. The City needed to address where to best prioritize Staff time, what the timeline should look like, and how to budget for the strategies. Councilors discussed the City's role in helping businesses understand the finances and potential benefits of installing chargers and Mayor Buck felt the City should concentrate its efforts on facilitating the installation of infrastructure where the private market would not otherwise step in, such as at older multifamily/apartment complexes, to ensure those residents had convenient access to EV charging in the future. Councilor Wendland believed that the City should not install more EV charging at City-owned facilities and should not be involved in the EV charger businesses. The free market would work towards charging infrastructure, though the City could encourage the development of infrastructure through policy changes to help with quick and efficient installation. Councilor Afghan suggested the City could install EV charging at its parks. Clarifying questions from Councilors were addressed by Staff as noted: • The City had data on utilization of its chargers, but not public chargers. The City Hall charger and the charger on A Avenue were the most heavily used. The charger at the Maintenance City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10 June 4, 2024 Center was not used as much, but the Maintenance Center Staff indicated the chargers were getting more repeat visitors. The charger at City Hall was used by City Staff and visitors while the charger at A Avenue was used by the public. Staff recognized some cars as using the City Hall charger daily or for longer amounts of time and some cars used the charger for shorter periods while drivers conducted business in City Hall. • The City had a couple of mechanisms to manage how the City Hall charger was used. If the charger was used for more than two hours, a parking fee was added so it was more expensive to be at the spot for a long amount of time. The City would also enforce people who parked in the spot who were not actively charging. There was nothing preventing someone from charging overnight, but it would not be the most cost-effective option. As the City looked at expanding accessible, reliable, convenient charging, it needed to recognize that accessibility had to do with price and ensure there were lower-cost charging stations. • The per-kilowatt-hour charge at City Hall was low because the City was a commercial customer, and its electricity cost was lower than at-home charging for most people. The price of charging at City Hall was just break-even with the City's cost of electricity. • The City should consider budgeting for installation, capital, and maintenance of chargers going forward. Currently, the facilities teamed managed the City's chargers and there had not been a lot of maintenance issues. However, as the City looked at scaling up charging infrastructure it would need to proactively budget for the infrastructure in a way it may not have in the past. • The City had a role to play in directing private investment to help make it easier to put in charging where the market was not currently meeting the community's needs. Where the private market had installed charger • When private companies voluntarily installed charging stations, there was a business case for it, as seen with Bank of America where Electrify America installed and operated chargers on BOA's site, allowing cost recoupment through pricing, possibly with federal funding at the time of installation. Some kind of intervention was usually needed to support investment, and the City could employ education strategies, such as informing site owners about State and PGE incentives, to encourage installation. The incentives could provide up to $6,000 per charger in rebates for multifamily and public charging, which many entities may not be aware of. Although rebates came with barriers, such as upfront costs, education could still be impactful. Additionally, the City might provide incentives or other support to facilitate investments in charging infrastructure where it might not otherwise occur. • There were a number of different federal programs for charging infrastructure, however one program was restricted to rural and lower-income areas, so Lake Oswego did not quality. The City, along with a cohort of other cities led by Tualatin, applied for the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant, which was a less restricted pot of funds, but was not successful in the first round, though Staff was informed the cohort may reapply. The best option for Lake Oswego currently were the State and PGE rebates, which the City was eligible for each time it installed a charger. While that program remained active, the City could receive anywhere from $750 to $6,000 per Level 2 charging port. • Staff had not researched charging infrastructure in Europe but understood Europe had more advanced regulations. For example, each electric vehicle was required to have its own charging cord to plug into public charging. In charge of EV growth, U.S. and global sales were expected to grow 20 percent in 2024, so there was strong growth in demand despite current market volatility. • The City would need to develop an inventory of older, multifamily buildings that might benefit from outreach regarding financial incentives to provide charging for its residents as the next step in an education strategy. It could be a challenge to identify the correct contact at City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10 June 4, 2024 multifamily buildings, but Staff could create a list to identify the subset of buildings without charging. • The City of Seattle was at an advantage because it was a municipal owned electric utility. As the municipal utility, Seattle wanted to install a certain number of chargers and put out an "opt- in" survey residents could voluntarily answer about the location of charging facilities. The survey was great way to gauge interest in where the charging stations needed to be. Lake Oswego could do a similar survey to gauge interest and then pass the data along to private companies rather than investing in the chargers itself. • There were strategies specific to subsidized affordable housing that were considered more appropriate than those for traditional multifamily housing. Programs through some nonprofits worked to introduce residents to EVs, taking a more inclusive approach than simply installing a charging station, which may not be well received. Community partners were aware of the needs of future residents and are working to address them. For example, a Hacienda CDC project in Portland conducted an electric vehicle car share pilot program. Mayor Buck stated the Council had expressed some reservations in general about installation of charging on City property. There was a consensus that Councilors would like a more sustainable pricing model for the long-term maintenance and operation of the facilities, and the Council would like to explore other ownership models. Before the City pursued any Code changes, the Council would like more data from the City of Portland and the development community. Mayor Buck directed Staff to provide the data prior to any involvement from the Planning Commission so the Council could provide clear direction. Mayor Buck asked for further clarification on charging in the right-of-way. Ms. Watson replied that the idea was targeted at denser, multifamily communities or developments without dedicated off-street parking, such as cottage clusters.The City could require developers to provide a charger in the right-of-way if they are not providing dedicated charging onsite. This could be on a utility/light pole or a pedestal charger. Since residents would be parking on the street, developers would need to install and pay for the charging infrastructure. This concept could include guidelines like, "Only where there is sufficient space in the right-of-way." Mayor Buck commented that it was a nice thing to pursue, assuming it made practical sense, but local developers had already indicated that in order to have marketable housing in Lake Oswego, parking had to be provided. Councilor Wendland asked if PGE was aggressively pursuing the installation of pull-down chargers. Ms. Watson responded that PGE's transportation electrification plan included incorporating several hundred chargers, prioritizing lower-income communities. PGE had a pull- mounted charger pilot in Southeast Portland, which could be a solution for Lake Oswego. However, they would need to assess the capacity of local poles, as PGE previously determined there were no suitable poles for multifamily communities with sufficient capacity. Newer charging technologies, including modular and cheaper options, and innovations like Seattle's pole-mounted chargers utilizing excess electrical capacity from LED streetlights, was something Lake Oswego could evaluate. The chargers would be compatible with all electric vehicles. There were two main adaptors currently in use, but the industry was moving towards compatibility, and EV owners often had adapters. Ms. Watson said Staff could return to the Council with some potential funding options so as the City entered budget discussions, there could be more in-depth conversations about costs for City facilities. Aside from the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure federal grant mentioned earlier,there were not many options for grant monies. The City had applied for that grant with a cohort of other cities, which made it more competitive. While the cohort was not successful in the first round, it City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 June 4, 2024 received notes that it was highly competitive and no projects in Oregon had been selected so it was likely the group would reapply. Other funds were available in the form of rebates. The Infrastructure Act had offered a competitive grant for charging infrastructure in low income and rural areas,which Lake Oswego did not qualify for.There were also a lot of grants for fast charging along highways. Oregon was getting more than $65 million to install fast charging along Interstates and major highways, and there would be more fast-charging hubs along 1-205 which directly benefited Lake Oswego. Most federal funding had gone to states to build out the electric highway and it was up to cities to meet gap within communities. 10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Mayor Buck provided an update on the recent interviews for Boards and Commissions for the upcoming year. He thanked everyone for their time and participation and noted the City received an incredible response this year, including a record number of student applicants. Selections would be approved at the next City Council meeting. The City held its first Pride celebration on Sunday at Millennium Park. Despite the rain, the event had an amazing turnout. LO for Love organized the celebration, receiving funding from the City and the business community. The event featured many vendors, local businesses, and the library. Mayor Buck summarized recent Metro discussions on the future of the Supportive Housing Services program. The program was set to sunset in six years, and key questions included whether to extend the program, adjust the sunset period, or change the tax rate. There was the need for a clear understanding of the consistent funding required as current funds remain largely unspent. Metro had not made any decisions and is gathering input from stakeholders. The unique needs of different jurisdictions had to be met. Lake Oswego and Clackamas County have different needs compared to Central Portland and Washington County. The program's scope could be expanded to allocate more funds for housing in addition to supportive services to meet ongoing unmet housing needs. The funds were currently directed towards supportive needs such as behavioral health and food security, but additional resources for housing would help the program meet diverse local needs while retaining the original intent. Next week, the Clackamas County Coordinating Committee (C4) would host its annual retreat. Discussion topics would include economic development in the county, employment lands, and job creation. 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS Ms. Phelan appreciated the opportunity to act as City Manager and thanked the Councilors for the productive meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:14 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 June 4, 2024 Respectfully submitted, Kari Linder, City Recorder Approved by the City Council on July 17, 2024. 1 411.°` Joseph M. Buck, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 June 4, 2024