Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2001-09-17 PMLAKL °swfc CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 17, 2001 °f[GON i Council President Jack Hoffman called the City Council information session to order at 4:00 p.m. on September 17, 2001, at the Main Fire Station. Present: Councilors Graham, McPeak, Council President Hoffman, Rohde and Turchi. Mayor Hammerstad and Councilor Schoen were excused. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director 3. INFORMATION SESSION 3.1 Planning Commission recommendation regarding LU 00-0018 (A), alternative transportation targets and Planning Commission issues regarding LU 00-0015 (A), local street connectivity 3.1.1 Alternative Transportation Targets Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, noted that `alternative transportation targets' used to be called `non -single occupant vehicle mode split targets.' She mentioned that Metro required the City to develop alternative transportation targets in order to meet Metro Functional Plan Title 6. She explained that Title 6 provided jurisdictions with the mode split targets that Metro deemed appropriate for the different design type areas throughout the region. She indicated that; in Title 6, Metro worked towards meeting the Transportation Planning Rule requirements, one of which was to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Ms. Heisler reviewed the new language staff devised (page 9) to make the item more understandable, in response to a concern expressed by the previous Council. She noted the inclusive nature of non -single occupancy vehicle trips, which meant any kind of trip that was other than a person driving alone in his/her car. She said that the City had 40 years to meet the alternative trips shared target (last column). She commented that, although Metro reduced the targets for the Lake Grove Town Center since the previous Council reviewed this matter, the Planning Commission decided to hold the line at the original figures. Ms. Heisler reviewed the questions and comments raised by the previous Council. She mentioned the comment that it was impossible to enforce the rules. She explained that this was a planning tool for measuring progress that did not require enforcement. The Council would use the five-year update to decide if it needed to be doing something else or something more in the area of land use/transportation connections in order to reach the targets. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Turchi that the City would probably not lose Metro funding if it did not move the targets; Metro might make suggestions during the City's periodic review if the number has not changed in 20 years but the City was not likely to see stronger measures. Ms. Heisler concurred with Councilor Graham that the City could use this as an argument with Tri -Met in its attempts to get shuttle service at the Kruse Way employment center. Ms. Heisler mentioned a second comment from the previous Council: The language was redundant with existing Comprehensive Plan policies. She explained that although the City had many Comprehensive Plan policies discussing how to make land use and transportation work City Council Information Session Minutes Page 1 of 9 September 17, 2001 together, this was a measuring tool that allowed the Council to evaluate the effectiveness of those efforts and decide if they needed more work. Council President Hoffman asked how the City would analyze its progress towards these targets every five years. Ms. Heisler said that staff would rely on Metro to use its four -step transportation model to help them do that. She clarified that staff could change some of the trip assignments to reflect changes in housing density and employment as part of determining what percentage of people were actually walking as opposed to driving. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Graham that she did not know what the progress was on the City's 1999 application to Metro for funding for a feasibility study (page 16). Councilor Rohde explained that it was part of the regional TMA package but no one at the City has taken on the task of pursuing it. Ms. Heisler mentioned the City's attempt to work with Tri -Met to obtain a Kruse Way shuttle bus but Tri -Met had a match requirement of $250,000 for a $1 million project; only a smattering of business appeared interested. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor McPeak that staff looked at carpooling by the Kruse Way office building employees as part of the shuttle project, and were surprised to find where the employees came from. She mentioned the Zoning Code requirement of transportation management agreements with new developments setting up a transportation management zone. She said that Tom Coffee put it together a couple of years ago but she did not know that the City did any monitoring of those agreements. Councilor Rohde mentioned the Metro requirement that businesses in the region with 50 or more employees put together a non -single occupancy vehicle (SOV) plan. He noted that the plan could vary from Intel's shuttle service between its plant and the MAX station to handing out glossy flyers once a year. Councilor McPeak observed that often people would move forward if they were embarrassed to report that they have done nothing. She suggested discussing the City requiring an annual report from these businesses, if it was not too expensive to do so. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Graham that few of the Kruse Way businesses had more than 50 employees at that office. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor McPeak that the City made its initial efforts with the property developer, and not with the individual business occupants. Ms. Heisler pointed out that the City had transportation management agreements only for the area north of Kruse Way, as the developments south of Kruse Way fell under the settlement agreement. Ms. Heisler confirmed to Council President Hoffman that staff scheduled this item for the Council's regular October 2 meeting. 3.1.2 Local Street Connectivity Ms. Heisler referenced the questions raised by the previous Council, outlined starting on page 44. She reiterated that the intent of the Code language was to comply with the Metro Functional Plan. She explained that the impetus behind connectivity was Metro's belief that providing more route options would take the pressure off the regional streets and encourage people to get out of their cars to walk or bike the shorter routes. Ms. Heisler discussed the previous Council's comment that the recommended changes went too far (in looking for connectivity opportunities for just about anything); the changes should only reflect Metro's minimum requirements for application, which were lots five acres in size or greater or if a street was proposed as part of a development. She noted that Lake Oswego had only one five -acre lot within the City limits at this time. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 2 of 9 September 17, 2001 Ms. Heisler referenced the handout showing the changes that staff made to the proposal. She noted the restriction on applying this only to a development that included a street or to a parcel five acres or greater. She mentioned the Planning Commission's decision to get rid of the maps. Ms. Heisler discussed the previous Council's comment that there was no data supporting the need for connectivity. She mentioned Metro's five studies that found that connectivity did result in reduced traffic demand, and that there was a healthy market for properties in town centers with good pedestrian connections to shopping and parks. Ms. Heisler noted that, especially in Lake Oswego, the instances where connectivity would apply were very limited. She listed the exceptions that Metro allowed for requiring connectivity. She observed that, should Lake Oswego ever expand into areas with large amounts of raw land, then connectivity was something that the City could plan from scratch. Ms. Heisler observed that residents favored cul-de-sacs because they kept traffic out of neighborhoods, except in the case of a long cul-de-sac, which forced all traffic out one entrance/exit. She mentioned the proposal's reduction of the length of a cul-de-sac from the current Code allowance of 1,000 feet to 200 feet, including all the exceptions. She commented that the proposal provided for future connectivity but did not make people retrofit when they came in with a development proposal. Councilor Rohde asked why staff took out the lot partition. He argued that the City should take advantage of an opportunity to put in a pathway in a development large enough to provide that opportunity. Ms. Heisler mentioned that the previous language gave the threshold as a parcel that was five times or greater than the minimum lot size required in the zone, which staff thought would include good-sized parcels with development potential. She indicated that the Council could look at that as well. At Councilor McPeak's request, Ms. Heisler reviewed on the sketch how the requirements would apply. She confirmed to Councilor Graham the exceptions to the requirement for a through street or pedestrian connections. Councilor McPeak recalled that her objections to the previous proposal focused on the map showing the properties impacted by this requirement, which would inhibit the property owner's options for the use of his/her property. Ms. Heisler clarified to Councilor Graham that the proposal structure right now applied the requirement to those creating a street or developing a parcel five acres or greater, unless one of the exceptions listed in Chapter 26.02.05 applied. She noted that if someone could not do a through street because of an exception, then he/she was supposed to provide a pedestrian connection. She noted the exceptions to providing a pedestrian access way. Councilor Rohde asked if this proposal would require a developer to install a pathway over an informal route established by the neighborhood that ran through the property, such as a shortcut route to the school site created by the children or to a park. David Powell, City Attorney, indicated that if the City could establish a nexus and balance under Dolan, then it could require the pathway. He mentioned that there might be some trespassing issues involved. He confirmed that the developer would not have to provide the connection unless he/she proposed a street or developed a five -acre parcel. Council President Hoffman suggested scheduling a discussion of the philosophic underpinnings of connectivity, given the three new Council members on the Council, to look at why Lake Oswego wanted to do this. He noted that the previous Council had a divided vote on the question. Councilor McPeak concurred that it would be good to have that discussion but expressed her hope that the Council would not go too far back towards an expansion of the Metro requirements that she could no longer support this proposal, which she described as much better than what she had voted against before. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 3 of 9 September 17, 2001 Councilor McPeak asked if the developed path to the Hallinan School at the end of Chapin had been a voluntary or required pathway when the property subdivided. She observed that that pathway was exactly the kind of connection they were discussing. Council President Hoffman indicated that the maps were important to him because they needed to know what the practical effects of this requirement were. Ms. Heisler referenced the 14 maps showing the specific sites where staff identified opportunities for connectivity. She explained that the intent had been to let people developing their property know what to expect. She noted that the requirement had applied to parcels five times the minimum lot size, even if those parcels were not on the map. Ms. Heisler indicated that, under this proposal, the City could require a pathway at the end of a cul-de-sac, like the one at the end of Chapin, if the development proposed a street that did not go through. Councilor McPeak observed that a developer could also install a pathway voluntarily. Councilor Rohde clarified that his concern was not with through streets, given that Lake Oswego was built out; his concern was about the pathways. He cited Chapin Way as a classic example of a place where a pathway running from the end of Chapin Way down to Hwy 43 would provide a shorter pedestrian/bike connection than currently existed. Mr. Powell addressed the question of whether at this time the City could require pathways through a subdivision that was not over five acres in size. He referenced a development code requirement of access ways for pedestrians and bicyclists for a subdivision or a planned development in order to provide the necessary direct routes not otherwise provided for by the existing right-of-way. He confirmed to Ms. Heisler that that applied whether or not the developer was creating a street. He reiterated that the City did have to show a nexus under Dolan to require the pathway or else pay for it itself. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Graham that this requirement would not change under the new proposal. Council President Hoffman directed the discussion to answering the question of whether the Council wanted to move forward with this ordinance or have a broader discussion that included the previous options. Ms. Heisler clarified to Councilor Graham that the proposal applied to parcels five acres or greater (even for partitions) or to developments proposing streets (regardless of the number of acres). Councilor Turchi asked Ms. Heisler to brief him more thoroughly on this issue at another time. Council President Hoffman reiterated his support for another discussion of the issues so that they would understand whatever decision they made. He mentioned that last time, he, Councilor Rohde and Councilor McPeak had been concerned about getting people off the street using alternative means. Councilor Rohde said that he did not think it was necessary; neither did Councilor Graham. Councilor Turchi said that he was willing to go along with the proposal. Mr. Powell confirmed to Councilor Rohde that in the case of a subdivision, the City could require the pathway he discussed, because a subdivision usually had the development impacts needed under Dolan. He said that he could not give a yes or no on a partition because the deciding factor was development impact; if the City could show that a partition created the need or eliminated another opportunity for a connection, then it could require a pathway. Mr. Powell said that one could make a Dolan argument that eliminating Councilor Rohde's example of the cut through established by the neighborhood was the impact, which required the pathway. He commented that usually the development created the need because of the increased foot traffic. He reiterated that a partition was more `iffy' and somewhat unlikely to create a need for a street. He mentioned that the City could require a pathway as a condition of approval and City Council Information Session Minutes Page 4 of 9 September 17, 2001 pay for it with City funds; otherwise, the City had to meet the Dolan criteria in order to require a pathway of a developer. Ms. Heisler confirmed to Councilor Graham that this proposal would apply only to new applications. She explained that the City had to use the rules that were on the books at the time a developer submitted his/her application. The Council agreed to schedule mode split targets for October 2. Ms. Heisler mentioned that the Planning Commission continued street connectivity, so it would not come to Council until October 16. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, said that if the Planning Commission made a significant change as a result of its discussions with Metro, staff would schedule another Council work session on street connectivity. Mr. Schmitz introduced Stephan Lashbrook, the new Community Development Director. 3.2 Appointments to the Budget Committee Mr. Schmitz mentioned that the Council continued this from the September 4 meeting, as some members expressed interest in reappointing the three sitting members who have not filled full terms. Council President Hoffman noted that those interested did receive copies of the applicant resumes. Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Graham that staff was waiting on Council direction before drafting the letter discussed at the September 4 meeting. Councilor McPeak spoke in support of reappointing the three sitting members and sending the straightforward letter to the other applicants explaining the situation. Councilor Graham described a letter to the other applicants as the best compromise but argued that future Board and Commission applicants would see this decision as setting a precedent when other vacancies came up. She reiterated her expectation that the Council would get some flack from this decision, mentioning the Library Advisory Board in particular. Councilor Turchi mentioned an option of not reappointing all three sitting members, given the impressive resumes among the 11 applications to serve on the Budget Committee. He observed that it was not a good idea to hold the interviews if the Council has already made up its mind. Council President Hoffman suggested re -appointing the three sitting members and establishing a waiting list; the Council would then interview those who wanted to go on the waiting list. He concurred with Councilor Turchi that the Council could fill vacancies from the waiting list without opening up the application process. Councilor Graham recalled that the Council has appointed alternates to Boards. She asked if the Council went through the interview process to select the alternates or did it keep the applications on file for a year and interview candidates if someone left. The Council agreed by consensus to re -appoint the three sitting Budget Committee members, and to send a letter to the other eight applicants, explaining what the Council has done and why, and informing them that the Council would contact them if there was an opening in the next 12 months. Council President Hoffman suggested including a line about the Council not wanting to waste people's time going through the interview process when it already decided to reappoint the three sitting members. 3.3 Youth Council Program Councilor Turchi reviewed the four models for a Youth Council that he provided to the Council. He noted that the first model actively engaged the Youth Councilors while the Youth Councilors were more passive participants in the second model. He described the third model as more individualized with City Councilors mentoring the Youth Councilors and developing individual programs. He discussed the fourth `projects' model in which the Youth Councilors worked with the Mayor and one City Councilor on a project to accomplish a specific goal. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 5 of 9 September 17, 2001 Councilor Turchi observed that Mayor Hammerstad's memo indicated her interest in Model 4, pairing the Youth Councilors with the Mayor and one City Councilor to work on a group plan and individual plans. He mentioned the specifics listed by the Mayor: one year, non-renewable (starting next year), seven members from each high school, selection by application and interview, and attendance at 3 meetings or work sessions per month. Councilor Turchi spoke to opening up the opportunity to be on the Youth Council to Lake Oswego high school students, regardless of whether they attended a public or private school. Councilor Rohde said that he liked Model 1, describing it as an excellent program. He indicated that he did not want to use the observational model they used last year. Councilor Graham observed that No. 9 in Model 1 was fairly close to the outline in Model 4 for a plan for student involvement; she liked engaging the students actively. She spoke to the students earning high school credit for their participation. She conceded that high school credit put more of a burden on the City Councilors to make sure that the students engaged in meaningful activity. Councilor Turchi commented that he did not see why they could not get the students credit for this activity, since they could earn credit for work experience. Councilor Graham commented that providing credit might attract the students who were genuinely serious about government. Councilor Graham discussed her third concern about the guidelines for the City Councilors in developing programs for the students (Model 1, No. 6). She mentioned having a list of what requirements the students had to meet in order to receive credit. Councilor McPeak said that, although she was not against Model 1, she was concerned with the amount of time that the Council had to devote to the Youth Council program. She discussed not adding a big load on, given the demands on their time to do a good job as Councilors. She indicated that, while much of Model 1 was possible, she was concerned that giving credit meant a greater involvement with her and her Youth Councilor than she wanted. Councilor McPeak spoke to Model 1 putting more emphasis on the project discussed in Model 4, overseen by the Mayor and one Councilor (as they had one Councilor with more time to devote to the Youth Council than she had). She held that one meeting a month was the right number to require Youth Councilors to attend. She questioned asking Youth Councilors for their opinions on the issues discussed by the Council. Councilor Graham disagreed. Councilor Rohde discussed the problem with simply sending the packet to the Youth Councilors without someone sitting down and explaining the context and background of the issues. He said that when he sat down with Sinan and went through the packet with him, Sinan was very interested, once he understood why the issues mattered. Councilor Graham spoke to having the Youth Councilors attend the morning sessions, which were often more productive in understanding the issues. Councilor Turchi mentioned a possibility that requiring attendance at morning meetings might preclude the Youth Councilors from participating in `zero period classes,' music programs and other activities that occurred before school. He noted that some of these students were very committed to those programs; the Council should not discount them as an important part of the students' regular program. Councilor Rohde argued that it was all right to have the students make those choices. He recalled that in high school he had to choose which electives he took; he could not fit all the electives he wanted to take into his schedule. Councilor Graham commented that the students who were serious about City government would select attending the Council morning meetings. Councilor Turchi summarized the discussion as allowing for reasonable individual contact between City Councilor and Youth Councilor but having the Youth Council work together on a group project as the main focus of a local government seminar, possibly based on their interests relative to program goals. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 6 of 9 September 17, 2001 Councilor Graham reiterated the need for guidelines to address Councilor McPeak's concern about expectations of the Councilors. Councilor Rohde concurred that it would be valuable to have guidelines, as he did not want this turning into a full time job either. Councilor McPeak spoke to providing an opportunity for the City Councilor and Youth Councilor to get to know each other at the beginning of the year, as opposed to at the end of the year, as happened last year when she followed her Youth Councilor to her classes Councilor Graham discussed Councilor McPeak's comment about the students talking about an issue before the Council took a vote. She described that as part of the youth learning process. She held that asking them to articulate what they heard and why they reached their conclusion was part of a meaningful program. Councilor Turchi said that he would combine Models 1 and 4 and look at the seminar model to work up a single model for Council review. He indicated to Councilor McPeak that they would use an application and interview process to select the Youth Councilors. The Council discussed the selection process. Councilor Rohde mentioned the impact of opening the opportunity up to students from both public and private high schools, and to home - schooled students. Councilor Turchi observed that many Lake Oswego high school students attended private schools. Councilor McPeak suggested assembling a faculty panel from the high schools to interview the applicants and narrow the pool down to 14 students. Council President Hoffman asked why the Council could not do it itself. Councilor Rohde mentioned the need to get the word out quickly. Councilor Turchi commented that he needed to talk to the principals about giving credit. He indicated to Councilor Graham that they could invite the private schools to join with the public schools in giving credit, if they so wished. Councilor Graham indicated that this needed to be inclusive of all students, including mentally challenged students. Councilor Turchi indicated to Council President Hoffman that the model did not preclude individual projects with an individual Councilor. Councilor Rohde suggested calling for applications with two letters of recommendation, which the Council would review and winnow down to the 14 Youth Councilors. 3.4 Items for tomorrow night Mr. Schmitz mentioned the two draft resolutions provided to Council in response to the tragedy last week. He mentioned a diplomatic policy of including some Library Advisory Board suggestions in the charge statement. Councilor Rohde suggested finding a way to recognize that the tragedy caused significant loss to people around the world, and to recognize Lake Oswego's emergency service personnel. Councilor Graham asked if Council President Hoffman and Councilor Rohde intended to give their report on sustainability tomorrow night. Councilor Rohde indicated that he did not have time to put it together before leaving Wednesday morning. 3.5 Inverurie Council President Hoffman asked for discussion of the situation on a property at the headwaters of Springbrook Creek, as illustrated by the pictures and e-mail he received. He asked if it lay within the unincorporated county. Councilor Turchi indicated that former parents at the school lived on this Rivergrove property that lay outside the city limits. He said that he talked with Chris Jordan about it; they were trying to approach it from different angles. He mentioned that Mr. Jordan was having the area checked City Council Information Session Minutes Page 7 of 9 September 17, 2001 to see if fecal material from this property was contaminating the Waluga Park wetland and other areas. Council President Hoffman reiterated his philosophy that those who lived in an urban area should comply with urban rules. Mr. Powell commented that the City could enforce its nuisance ordinances on property outside the city limits if that property was creating a hazard within the city. Councilor Graham indicated to Councilor McPeak that folks Saturday morning told her that there was a question of the property owner's mental stability. She mentioned a question of animal abuse also. Councilor Turchi said that they have talked to Clackamas County, DEQ and the Health Department about the situation. DEQ said it would leave it to Clackamas County to enforce its own rules. He mentioned that Rob Bower was considering his suggestion to band with five of his neighbors and annex to the city, bringing this property along with them, as the City would enforce the rules. Mr. Schmitz asked what the goal was, and could they achieve it more quickly than using the annexation process. Councilor Turchi said that the goal was to get the 50 or so ducks and geese to stop relieving themselves in the gray water coming out of the septic system that pooled in the backyard and drained into the storm water system going into Waluga Park and eventually creating an algae bloom in Lake Oswego. Council President Hoffman mentioned a second goal of getting people in unincorporated Clackamas County into the city. Councilor Graham said that Chris Roth told her that the County has closed the book on the situation. Councilor Turchi explained that the County inspection found the situation within the acceptable parameters for the County. He commented that if this were located in a rural area, it would be fine. Councilor Turchi described the issue was that the County residents wanted the services of the city without being part of the city. He argued that they had a good reason to have City enforcement of its codes but they did not want to become part of the city to get what they needed. He restated Councilor Graham's comment as the neighbors needed to figure out how they could finesse an annexation as an approach to this problem. Councilor Turchi concurred with Councilor Graham that the City needed to be careful how it handled this problem in order to avoid the appearance of ramming a solution down the neighborhood's throat. He held that if the neighborhood could not see a clear self-interest in being in the city in a situation like this, then nothing would convince them of it. Mr. Powell asked what the violation was that was a violation of the City Code but not a violation of the County Code. He indicated that one could not have a septic tank actually draining into a surface pool in either the City or the County. He reiterated that if there was sewage draining into Springbrook Creek, then the City could enforce its Code without annexation. Councilor Turchi clarified that it was draining into the wetlands in Waluga Park. Councilor Rohde mentioned that his car was hit by a golf ball when he was up at Pioneer Cemetery visiting relatives' graves. He said that a lady had a similar situation, which led him to conclude that the City might have a problem. 4. ADJOURNMENT Council President Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 5:27 p.m. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 8 of 9 September 17, 2001 Respectfully submitted, Robyn Clu stie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON October 16, 2001 City Council Information Session Minutes Page 9 of 9 September 17, 2001