Loading...
Agenda Item - 2001-08-07 - Number 4.4.3 - 4.4.3 08/07/01 MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2001 INFORMATION SESSION s _; CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEETING <""`L "'�c, MINUTES ,� July 9, 2001 ,/ YiZ---- o _ Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the City Council information session to order at 4:08 p.m. on July 9, 2001, in the City Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak. Councilor Hoffman was excused. Councilor Rohde was absent. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder; Jane Heisler, Long Range Planning Manager; Bob Kincaid, Chief of Staff County Board Present: Commissioners Bill Kennemer, Michael Jordan, and Larry Sowa. County Administrator Steve Rhodes was also present. 3. JOINT MEETING WITH CLACKAMAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor Hammerstad welcomed the Clackamas County Commissioners and the County Administrator. She described the meeting as an opportunity to frame problems and to work towards a solution. • Rivergrove Sewer Extension Mayor Hammerstad noted that this extension was necessary because of failing septic tanks in the Rivergrove area. She mentioned the Rivergrove School and the Athletic Club in particular. She observed that half the properties were in Rivergrove and half the properties were in the County with two properties in the City of Lake Oswego. She indicated that the City was responsible for providing sewer service to the City of Rivergrove. Mayor Hammerstad commented that the problem was the financing structure. She asked Doug Schmitz, City Manager, to review the Council's discussions on local improvement districts and zone of benefits. Bob Kincaid, Chief of Staff, distributed a map of the area. Mr. Schmitz recalled that the City of Rivergrove, the Athletic Club and the Lake Oswego School District approached the City because the Rivergrove School and the Athletic Club were under cease and desist orders from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) with respect to their current operations. He said that, following discussions with the major property owners and the proposed subdivision owners, staff began the planning and alignment of the sewer route. Mr. Schmitz said that, after receiving Council approval to move forward with a local improvement district, staff held a series of neighborhood meetings that led to opposition. He mentioned his understanding from the County Administrator that the Board was not inclined to support a local improvement district (LID)but preferred the zone of benefit option. He commented that the Council wanted to discuss the pros and cons of the issue with the County Board. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that the School District was prepared to contribute money to a zone of benefit, as was the City. She asked if the County was willing to participate in fronting the costs of a zone of benefit. She explained that the City proposed a zone of benefit for longer than the normal 10 years as a means of encouraging people to hook up rather than wait out the 10 years and avoids paying into the zone of benefit. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 1 of 11 July 9, 2001 7i Mayor Hammerstad noted that this area had little potential for system development charges, as it was a developed area. She argued that they had a reasonable expectation of numerous sewer hook-ups during the zone of benefit period, due to the many failing septic tanks. Mayor Hammerstad discussed the zone of benefit as an easier way to get the project accomplished. She mentioned the remonstrance period in the LID, which made that process more difficult. She indicated that she did not expect an answer from the Board today. She stated that she wanted to get the project done in a way that the property owners felt they could handle. She reiterated that, according to the City's information, the Board agreed with the property owners. Mr. Schmitz indicated to Commissioner Jordan that the cost of the project was $600,000. Commissioner Jordan concurred that the map indicated that the lots with access to this sewer line were already developed. He commented that the Athletic Club would not object, as its septic system was failing. He concluded that the properties of concern to the County were those already developed along the route. Commissioner Sowa asked if the City has established the rate for the school and athletic club participation. Commissioner Kennemer mentioned hearing that some neighbors did want the sewer. Mr. Schmitz indicated that staff would not have a firm number until they finished the discussion on whether to go with a LID or a zone of benefit and on who fronted the money. Commissioner Kennemer mentioned receiving a phone call from a citizen concerned about a sewer line being built in Childs Road to serve pending development. He said that the person's concern was that if this project did not move forward, then the City would have to extend the sewer line in Childs Road, which had soil instability. Mr. Schmitz clarified that Childs Road did not have soil instability; it had solid rock; the developers initially lost money because they had to go deeper than anticipated to install the utility lines. Mr. Schmitz confirmed to Commissioner Kennemer that the City intended to hook into an existing line at Sycamore. Mayor Hammerstad said that the City could provide the Board with better estimates about equitable dollar amounts of participation, if the Board was interested in participating. She pointed out that if the County did not want to participate in a zone of benefit, then the City was back to looking at an LID because it did not have sufficient money to upfront the entire cost of the project. She noted that both the School District and the athletic club wanted to get this done as soon as possible; their participation would reduce the City's participation. Mayor Hammerstad confirmed to Commissioner Jordan that funding the entire project through a LID removed all risk because a LID was a lien on the property. Commissioner Jordan asked if the issue was risk analysis (the City not getting its money back), and not cash flow. He stated that he assumed that a sewer system the size of Lake Oswego's did not have difficulty fronting a $600,000 cost from a cash flow perspective. He commented that if all the properties lay within the same jurisdiction,he too would have difficulty justifying a zone of benefit, as the City would not collect any money unless someone came in for development, which was unlikely in a developed area. . David Powell, City Attorney, confirmed to Commissioner Jordan that the City required hook up, even with a working septic system, when the property came into the city. Commissioner Jordan observed that that requirement might make annexation look less attractive. Commissioner Kennemer said that he understood the dilemma but he was not certain how eager he was to participate in resolving it. Mayor Hammerstad clarified to Commissioner Jordan that the school's timeline for getting the project done was December 2002. She pointed out that the City had to do either a LID or a zone of benefit. She asked for County support of a LID if the Commissioners did not want to participate in a zone of benefit. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 2 of 11 July 9, 2001 7 `-' Commissioner Kennemer said that their problem, from a cash flow perspective, was that they did not have a utility to dump this on. Steve Rhodes, County Administrator, concurred that SWMAC would not have the funding, even if there was a nexus from a water quality standpoint. Mayor Hammerstad explained that the reason that Lake Oswego did not have $600,000 available to do this project was because it needed a new lake interceptor installed within three years; that was what they needed to spend their current utility fees on. She said that this Rivergrove extension was not in their CIP. Mayor Hammerstad asked the Board to discuss this issue at a study session in the near future and to inform the City of its decision on supporting a LID or a zone of benefit. She explained to a member in the audience that the option of a private party doing the project was not available in this situation because of the two properties with cease and desist orders. • Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan Mayor Hammerstad asked Jane Heisler,Long Range Planning Manager, to review the neighbors' requests on how they would like the County and the City to work together on expanding the Urban Growth Management Agreement(UGMA) in order to allow City jurisdiction on certain issues for properties in the county. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the neighbors were willing to look at an annexation plan and timeline. She said that, while the neighbors were aware of the conflict with City services in the County, they wanted to cover the time before the annexation vote. She indicated that, while the Council wanted to adopt the neighborhood plan, they believed that it needed to be a joint adoption. Ms. Heisler distributed a handout from Cathy Schroyer, Lake Forest Neighborhood Association Chair, which covered all the general association meetings and the steering committee meetings. She mentioned the staff meetings with the County staff, City staff and the Steering Committee. Ms. Heisler discussed the issue raised by County staff that the plan policies were too specific; they were prescriptive rather than descriptive, citing two examples. She held that the County and City staffs could work together with the neighbors to modify the language to the satisfaction of all parties. Ms. Heisler mentioned that, from the neighborhood's point of view, the two cornerstone policies in the plan requiring County adoption were the City tree cutting policies and the home occupation regulations. She noted that the surveys found that two-thirds of the residents wanted to see some kind of tree cutting regulations, and that some of the home occupations in the neighborhood went beyond the neighborhood character. Ms. Heisler noted that the requirement of annexation for a partition or new commercial, multi- family or industrial development went beyond the current UGMA policy requiring annexation if a development needed City sewer; it would apply even in the Unified Sewage Agency area but not in the Kruse Way area(which was already covered under a separate agreement). Ms. Heisler mentioned the final issue of the City-County role in annexation. She indicated that the Council believed that the success of any annexation program would rely on the participation of the County. • Cathy Schroyer, 96727 SW Babson Place, Lake Forest Neighborhood Association Chair Ms. Schroyer explained that many of the neighborhood residents moved to this area because they valued trees. She confirmed that the surveys found that the majority wanted some tree protection. She noted that most of the neighborhood was on septic tanks, not sewer, and therefore, major development could not occur yet. She held that it was only a matter of time before developers consolidated lots and built 30 homes where there were now four. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 3 of 11 July 9, 2001 Ms. Schroyer argued that the neighborhood had this window of opportunity now to take measures to protect the trees before major development occurred. She emphasized that the County had no rules for tree cutting; it allowed clear-cutting, which was not something that the neighborhood wanted to see happen, as it was irreversible. Ms. Schroyer discussed the neighborhood's interest in the home occupation regulations. She explained that people were buying homes in the neighborhood because they were cheap, had a "Lake Oswego" address and easy access to I-5; they then turned the homes into offices in which to conduct their businesses but they did not live on site. She emphasized that these people were not buying houses for home occupations. She cited an example of the neighborhood managing to get a sheet metal operation out of the neighborhood. Ms. Schroyer commented that with the County now specifying which parts of its Code it would and would not enforce, it made it easier for the Association to say that the County regulations did not fit in with their neighborhood. She confirmed that tree cutting regulations and home occupation regulations were the two major issues that the neighborhood picked as priorities. Mr. Rhodes mentioned that one of the County's objections had been to County staff being asked to enforce the regulations. He asked for clarification on whether it was the City's intent was for the City to take care of the enforcement. Mayor Hammerstad said yes, it was the City's intent to enforce any of its regulations in that area. Ms. Schroyer confirmed to Councilor Graham that people were buying homes specifically for businesses purposes only; they did not reside in the homes. Commissioner Jordan pointed out that Lake Forest was only one of many urban or semi-urban environments in unincorporated Clackamas County that had a growing expectation of an urban level of services. He mentioned the County's recently adopted ordinances to reduce the level of Code enforcement by County staff for urban type of services because the County no longer had the resources to monitor the urban services across the entire county. Commissioner Jordan noted that the vast majority of code enforcement complaints came from within the urban growth boundary. He stated, speaking for himself, that urban level services should be provided by cities. He observed that there were issues of responsibility and finances in getting to that level of service. He argued that the residents could get urban level services and be in the city or they could get less than urban level services and be in the county but they could not have it both ways. Commissioner Jordan mentioned the transitional nature of this neighborhood in stating that the Commission was willing to work with the City on the transition and how it would occur within the framework of both the County and the City's fiscal ability to enforce. He reiterated that, regardless of what method they came up with, residents wanting urban level services should be in the city. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that the City's approach has also been that residents wanting urban level services should be in the city. She spoke of developing a transition plan towards annexation as part of the neighborhood plan. She commented that if the neighborhood knew that this plan headed towards annexation, then they had some education tools they could use to bring people on board. She noted that that this was the most likely neighborhood to be successful, as the association knew what the problems were and had strong leaders. Commissioner Jordan indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that the Board has not gone through the entire plan; staff presented it to them a long time ago in a work session. He commented that he thought that conceptually the work that has been done was headed in the right direction but the question now was how to get there in a way that worked for everyone. He held that if they could write a transitional timeframe for annexation, then they had some room to maneuver. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the Council would like the Commissioners to strongly support annexation during the campaign, and to encourage voters to annex to Lake Oswego if they wanted city services. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 4 of 11 July 9, 2001 7 4 Commissioner Kennemer concurred with Commissioner Jordan that the County was not financially in a position to provide urban services, particularly specific code enforcement. He spoke to finding a way to differentiate between different communities and letting the local communities set the local standards. He argued that, until they had that in place, it was difficult to figure out how to have different ordinances apply to small groups or communities, which made this transition awkward. Commissioner Kennemer said that he was interested in looking at a transition plan, and at how strongly the neighbors felt about this issue and how much work they were willing to put into it. He concurred that if the neighbors wanted Lake Oswego standards in their community,then they needed to annex to the city in order to obtain that enforcement. He observed that historically that has not been an easy sell. Ms. Schroyer argued that County support was critical. She indicated that past conversations that the neighborhood has had with County staff left people with the impression that the County was doing the urban planning that the neighborhood wanted done. She pointed out that that was not strictly true, as the County was never intended to provide urban planning; it got stuck doing it but it did not want to do it. She held that it would be helpful if the neighbors could hear that truthfully instead of getting the impression that the County staff was offended that they wanted to leave the county. Commissioner Kennemer indicated that the County did provide urban services to varying degrees in different areas; Lake Oswego was the only full service city out of the 15 cities in Clackamas County. He characterized the County services as "suburban" level, which was a different standard than an `urban' level. He held that people chose to live in the county with its lower level of services and tax benefits. He concurred with Commissioner Jordan that if people wanted the higher urban standards, then they needed to pay for those standards; the County would adhere to the suburban standard. Councilor Turchi asked if Ms. Schroyer thought that the neighbors would perceive positively or negatively a situation in which the City and the County worked out the issues and put a three- year sunset on the neighborhood plan. Ms. Schroyer said that it depended on how the association presented it to the neighborhood. She argued that they needed to tell people that the reality was that they needed to annex for these specific reasons; if people wanted a rural lifestyle, then they needed to buy five acres somewhere else because that lifestyle no longer fit into the neighborhood. She indicated that a three-year sunset might be helpful in getting the message across that the neighborhood was only protected for three years. Ms. Schroyer indicated to Councilor Turchi that about one-third of the neighborhood was within the city limits, so the sewer was creeping in. She reiterated that they wanted to protect what they could until they could persuade people to annex. Mayor Hammerstad asked if the Commissioners would support annexation during an election, such as writing a statement in the voter's pamphlet to inform people that if they wanted an urban level of services, they needed to annex to the city. She observed that there was still the myth out there that the County did not want to lose residents. Commissioner Kennemer said that he felt awkward taking a position of strong advocacy unless there were some compelling reasons for doing so. He mentioned hearing compelling reasons both for and against annexation from citizens. He stated that he was comfortable with his statement that if the community wanted higher levels of service and certain standards, then he would encourage annexation to Lake Oswego because the County was not in the business of providing that level of service. He held that it was up to people to make their own decisions. Commissioner Kennemer observed that the needs throughout the 1,900 square miles of county territory were remarkably different, which made it difficult to figure out how to respond appropriately to a given situation. He posed the question of what did the community want to do. He noted that apparently a good portion of the neighborhood wanted to obtain the higher level of services, which the Board would encourage them to annex in order to receive. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 5 of 11 July 9, 2001 5 Commissioner Kennemer reiterated that he was comfortable with that level, which put the issue clearly on the table but stopped short of advocacy. He commented that this neighborhood annexing to the city was not a loss to the County; rather it would make their job easier. He held that it was a local decision, which should be decided by a vote. Commissioner Sowa concurred with Commissioner Kennemer's comments. He held that if people wanted more services, they needed to realize that they would have to pay for those services. Commissioner Jordan mentioned the Board's position that new urban areas brought into the urban growth boundary should be cities. He pointed out that if no city wanted the area,then the County might be compelled legally to do something. He argued that the issue was not whether Lake Forest should or should not be in the city (because it should be in the city); the issue was how to get from where they were today to that point of annexation, both logistically and politically. He held that this was the issue struggled with the most inside the existing urban growth boundary. Commissioner Jordan commented that the Council has suggested one step in that process: the County supporting an annexation measure on the ballot. He indicated that the Board's position would be similar to what Commissioner Kennemer articulated: if residents wanted a higher level of service, then they needed to annex to a city or form a city because the County could not provide that level of service. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the dilemma was that some people wanted the higher level of services and some did not, yet they all lived in the same neighborhood. Commissioner Jordan spoke to using tools, such as a sunset clause,to work on a transition. He pointed out that a sunset clause would allow people to see what it was like to be in the City. He indicated that he would like to see a plan that fixed a deadline for an annexation ballot measure. He mentioned a possible Board discussion of a commitment to saying that if the experiment went well, the Board would support the annexation. Commissioner Jordan agreed with Mayor Hammerstad that they did not often get neighborhoods volunteering to annex to the city. He expressed the Commission's appreciation for the hard work by the neighborhood in developing this plan. Councilor McPeak summarized the Commission's comments as saying that the Commission would support working with the City and the neighborhood on a limited number of transitional steps to protect the resources, which she held were vitally important to protect. She noted that the Commission also wanted a deadline for a vote. Commissioner Jordan said that the linkage of these things to some definite transitional plan to annex to the city was an important linkage. Councilor Graham concurred with Councilor McPeak that the Commission's comments sounded positive but questioned what might happen during the transition period. She cited an example of timber companies offering property owners on Puget Sound a price that the owners could not refuse, and clear-cutting the beautiful vistas in the area. She expressed her concern that something similar might happen to the lovely Douglas fir groves in the Lake Forest area. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that the Council could pass the tree and home occupation ordinances and do the code enforcement at the City's expense; in addition, the neighborhood plan required developing properties to annex to the city. She said that, once the Council had finished tweaking the areas it had identified, then it would send the plan to the County Board; together they could continue to work on it until they arrived at a satisfactory document. Mayor Hammerstad asked the neighborhood association to work with the City and the County on the transition plan and its implications for the annexation vote. She mentioned hearing the word `blackmail,' which was not a word she liked hearing. She spoke to finding a satisfactory resolution of these problems in a way that protected the neighborhood. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 6 of 11 July 9, 2001 Commissioner Kennemer said that, while he wanted to find a way to be supportive of the transition, he needed a clear timeline and likely outcomes or he would have a problem with inconsistency. He agreed with Commissioner Jordan that it would be easier if they were in a transition to some place that was readily identifiable and with a clear course of action. He commented that he had difficulty with the tree ordinance, as he saw it as a property rights issue. Commissioner Kennemer emphasized that if they were going to start limiting people's rights or increase their responsibilities, he needed to see this heading clearing in the direction of annexation in order to feel comfortable with it. He noted that ultimately the decision lay in the hands of the Lake Forest residents through their vote. Mayor Hammerstad commented that one of the reasons that the Council has not adopted the plan yet was that it had been trying to do the Board's thinking for it, with the understanding that the Commissioners did not feel comfortable with this plan. She said that they would stop doing that based on this discussion. She agreed that a plan with a transition timeline would be more comfortable for everyone. Councilor McPeak concurred that they needed to get to the point where the neighborhood decided whether or not it wanted to be part of the city. She spoke to doing that sooner than later. Councilor Schoen held that they had a serious education problem. He spoke to the County helping inform the Lake Forest residents that it supported annexation. Commissioner Jordan suggested that the City send them the most definitive language it could with respect to the City's desired outcome. The Commissioners agreed on the need for another work session to discuss areas of discomfort and to find a way to resolve them. Councilor Graham asked what compelling reasons people gave to Commissioner Kennemer for not annexing to the city. Commissioner Kennemer said that property rights, use of their property and the tree ordinance was one issue, and that the increased cost was a second issue. He mentioned one person's perspective that for a substantial increase in taxes, he got more regulation and more hassle, which the Commissioner held as a semi-legitimate perspective from a fairness viewpoint. He noted that many of the residents moved to the suburbs on purpose; they could have moved to a city. Ms. Schroyer indicated that part of the reason they did two different surveys was because of the variety of viewpoints in the neighborhood; they knew that the Commission and the Council would want to hear from the people in the neighborhood and not simply the committee. She said that the surveys also provided the committee with clear direction. She commented that many people who moved to the Lake Forest neighborhood were shocked to discover that they did not live in Lake Oswego; they had a Lake Oswego address and their kids went to Lake Oswego schools. Ms. Schroyer emphasized that people did move to their neighborhood because they shared Lake Oswego's values of trees, low crime rate, etc. She reiterated that the survey indicated that the committee was doing what the people wanted; the work now was to educate the people about the cost and get to the vote. Mayor Hammerstad summarized the direction as the Council holding a study session to work on the plan language and a transition timeline; then the City would send it to the County. She observed that the public process was slow—the neighborhood has been working on this since 1995 —but she held that a successful annexation vote would make this worth doing. Christine Roth (in the audience) mentioned that the residents in the Rosewood area were following this closely, as they were dealing with the same issues as Lake Forest. • Natural Resources Protection Ms. Heisler indicated that the Council wanted to have an open dialog on ways to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. She described the location of the subject parcel in the Forest Highlands neighborhood (see aerial photos and the inventory map). She noted that, in its City Council Information Session Minutes Page 7 of 11 July 9, 2001 7'i Sensitive Lands program, the City designated two-thirds of this parcel as either a stream corridor or an associated tree grove. Ms. Heisler said that the property owner obtained a building permit from the County to build a new house; in the process, a majority of the trees were removed and the stream corridor was altered to a 90 degree angle, which significantly impacted the slope and soil stability, and contributed to erosion. Ms. Heisler explained that the City now had to deal with the effects of this degradation of the land because the property owner subsequently applied for a partition, which required annexation to the city; staff was spending a lot of time trying to reconstruct the topography of the parcel. She mentioned their concerns with respect to the Endangered Species Act, as the stream was a tributary of Tryon Creek, a fish-bearing stream flowing into the Upper Willamette. Ms. Heisler indicated to Commissioner Jordan that she did not know if the property owner had permission from the County to realign the stream but she did know that he did not get a Division of State Lands (DSL)permit. She said that the owner was now under an enforcement order from DSL to fix some of the problems. She concurred with the Board that it had been an illegal action. Commissioner Kennemer noted that, regardless of the County Code, the County staff would have referred the property owner to the DSL because only DSL had the authority to alter a stream course. Ms. Heisler pointed out that, had this property been in the City, the City regulations would have required an environmental review and allowed the cutting of only a minimal amount of trees. She described the resulting property as a less pleasurable lot to look at and with water quality issues and a degradation of the resource and habitat values. Mayor Hammerstad noted that the sequence of events was a lot developing in the County and annexing to the city following that development. She indicated that being left with a denuded lot became a problem for the City. She asked Ms. Heisler what suggestions she had for a solution. Ms. Heisler mentioned the Council's discussion of County support for annexation so that the City regulations could apply, and of County adoption of City regulations for sensitive lands protection and enforcement. Commissioner Jordan said that the Board had the same issues in almost every city in the County where activity occurred within the urban growth boundary but outside the city limits. He indicated that the rural cities were also concerned because they knew that ultimately those properties would annex. He spoke to holding a discussion of allowing cities by their own choice to apply their own rules within their sphere of influence, as defined in a management agreement. Commissioner Kennemer asked Ms. Heisler to make this presentation to the County staff, and ask now they could not have these kinds of things happen again. Mayor Hammerstad concurred that the City should be able to do something, as this property lay within its urban services boundary. Commissioner Jordan commented that he did not know, within the context of the broad policy perspective of the County-City relationship, how to handle this question, other than under the same concept discussed for the Lake Forest neighborhood. • Home Occupations Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the application for a home occupation permit on Country Club Road, which included larger signage and more parking than the City would permit. She indicated that the City was looking into annexing that part of Country Club Road without having to go farther into Forest Highlands. Mayor Hammerstad held that this was essentially the same issue as the one they have been discussing. She spoke to finding a creative way to deal with some of the offensive actions that impacted the City but over which the City had no control. She noted that people driving down City Council Information Session Minutes Page 8 of 11 July 9, 2001 Country Club assumed that they were in Lake Oswego. She characterized Country Club as a signature street with its view of Mount Hood. Mr. Schmitz described the situation as establishing an insurance company in the middle of a residential district. Commissioner Jordan indicated that this would come under the County's major home occupation ordinance, which did permit the signage and number of vehicles. Councilor Graham referenced the memo informing the Council that the business might have five employees on site, and thus five cars. She indicated that, while she did not have a problem with the elder care home located not far from this site, she was concerned about its neon light, which set a precedent. She asked what was to prevent the insurance business from putting in a sign that blinked at people. Commissioner Jordan said that the County had no restriction on illumination. Commissioner Jordan agreed that this was another example of the issue of unincorporated areas transitioning to the city. He characterized it as another symptom in the long history of the pattern of development established in the relationship between the cities in Clackamas County and the County. He observed that undoing what has been done would be more difficult than working in the new areas. Commissioner Jordan invited the Council to continue this dialog with respect to transitioning areas from the county into the city, and to amending the UGMA affecting Lake Oswego's sphere of influence. He spoke to discussion of how to do this for the long term. • Stafford Basin Mayor Hammerstad raised the issue of the Stafford area. She recalled that Lake Oswego had a required vote on the annexation of Stafford. She mentioned the City's arguments on why the Stafford Basin should not come into the urban growth boundary. She said that their arguments were based primarily on offsite impacts, such as the failure of I-205 and Highway 43 during commuter hours. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that this argument was not what the County Board has discussed with concurrency. She said that the Council felt that the area could probably be developed with internal roads and a widening of Stafford. She noted that the next bottleneck would be the bridge. She emphasized that their concerns were how to get people off the hill and out of the area. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned other arguments of natural resource protection issues with the hilly terrain and the many streams in the basin, which would cause the productivity to go down and lessen the traffic impact. She stated that the Council would like to keep Stafford out of the urban growth boundary until some of these offsite impacts were remedied. • Long Term Vision Mayor Hammerstad asked for the Board's continued support of Lake Oswego's excursion trolley. She mentioned the City's plans to link it as a viable streetcar line into the Portland streetcar line, as the North Macadam area developed. She pointed out that this was a reasonable plan and addressed some of the Highway 43 impacts, including those from Stafford and West Linn. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the City's expectation of extending their urban renewal district in their updated downtown plan: an extension from Highway 43 to the river, north of Oswego Pointe, which was an industrial area now. She described it as low value development on high value land. She spoke to reclaiming the Willamette River, extending the pathway system, and building mixed use housing and retail, while noting the constraint of the flood plain. Mayor Hammerstad described the City's long-term vision of linking upper Lake Oswego to lower Lake Oswego. She mentioned the possibility of building a significant park and ride City Council Information Session Minutes Page 9 of 11 July 9, 2001 7 `1 facility down below, which would not be visible because of the grade and on top of which they could put a park with pathway linkages across Highway 43 and the railroad tracks. She asked for support from the County in helping them realize their long-term vision. She conceded that one day the Stafford area might come into the urban growth boundary but reiterated that the City wanted to be able to handle it and not be overwhelmed prior to the time that it got the rest of its plans in place. • Stafford Basin Mayor Hammerstad mentioned Wankers Corner. Commissioner Kennemer recalled that the County offered $420,000 and the Rolling Hills Church offered $200,000 towards a$1.2 million solution to Wankers Corners. He observed that both Lake Oswego and West Linn did impact that intersection. Mayor Hammerstad agreed that Lake Oswego did have an impact. She mentioned putting it in the CIP over time. Commissioner Jordan stated that the Commission did not see offsite impacts on major arterials as a non-concurrency issue. He pointed out that any expansion of the urban growth boundary to the east of the Damascus area would require significant surface transportation improvements that did not exist today, yet the Board considered that a concurrency issue for eastwards expansion. He said that they would consider the means of getting people in and out of the Stafford Basin as a concurrency issue before applying urban zoning. Commissioner Jordan reiterated the Commission's belief that new areas brought into the urban growth boundary ought to be cities; the County should not do urban level zoning unless compelled by the courts to do so. He commented that the Lake Oswego's voter approved annexation policy for Stafford could present the County with some problems. Commissioner Jordan mentioned the issues in the discussion at the Metro regional level that he thought could play into this discussion. He discussed the issue of absorption rates. He held that if concurrency and infrastructure provision were difficult, then moving the boundary and factoring in the time it took to put the appropriate infrastructure in place to do urban level zoning could ameliorate a `wildfire' effect. He spoke to making those things whole at the Metro and State level. Commissioner Jordan noted that there were others in the region, in addition to Clackamas County, who were concerned about `loosening the belt of the urban growth boundary, which cooled the market, making an urban renewal strategy, such as Portland's, less effective. He commented that that a delayed absorption rate from the lands brought into the urban growth boundary could help ameliorate the problems with urban renewal strategy Commissioner Jordan reiterated that this Commission would stick to the issues of concurrency, even if it applied to 1-205,the same as they were doing with the Sunrise Corridor to the east. He indicated his belief that the Commission and the Council were on the same page regarding provision of service in the Stafford Basin. He argued that if they expanded the urban growth boundary from the Tualatin River to I-205 in order to allow for the development of job producing kinds of investments,then the private sector would fix the Stafford/Borland problem. He spoke to the area developing from the bottom up, and not the top down. Commissioner Jordan confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that they would discuss the County's financial strategies at the Timothy Lake retreat. He mentioned his concern that, even with scheduling 100% recovery through systems development charges of what was attributable to new growth, that left 40% of the County CIP to be funded from somewhere else. He discussed the option of a transportation impact fee, similar to Washington County's, which he described as more consistent and equitable countywide. He noted the issue of how to collect the money from those who passed through a community, such as Lake Oswego, that the jurisdiction needed in order to build the necessary infrastructure to handle the pass through traffic. • Library Financing City Council Information Session Minutes Page 10 of 11 July 9, 2001 60 b Mayor Hammerstad mentioned hearing that the Board intended not to honor the library levy in accordance with the vote but to include it in the general tax base when it rolled into the County tax base under Measure 50. Mr. Rhodes clarified that the Board has not discussed this issue or taken that position; the only thing the County has said was that those was on the table when the five years was up. Commissioner Jordan confirmed that the Board has not discussed the issue, except to state that it intended to live up to the five-year commitment. He indicated that the County was not in a good place right now but they would try to fix that in the next year. Mayor Hammerstad commented that Lake Oswego was in the same situation with its school levy that was passed by the voters and folded into its tax base; the City no longer levied it because the Council felt it was inappropriate to do so. She indicated that the Council felt strongly that it would like to see the library levy continued in its proportions as passed by the voters, especially since Lake Oswego overwhelmingly voted for it. Commissioner Jordan expressed his appreciation for the previous Board's commitment to maintain the proportions. He reiterated that when the five years was up, they would re-evaluate it. He indicated that his preference was to maintain the commitment but he could not say what might happen in the future, given the other needs of the community. Commissioner Jordan concurred with Mayor Hammerstad that working on the committee that developed the present distribution formula had not been a pleasant experience. He noted that some were uncomfortable with the circulation theory and interested in revisiting the issue and presenting a new proposal to the Commission. Commissioner Jordan thanked the Council for inviting the Commissioners to this productive meeting where they had a chance to hear from each other. Mayor Hammerstad asked about the Title 3 discussion scheduled for the Board meeting on Thursday. Mr. Rhodes said that it was an opportunity for those applying for Title 3 funding to give a brief presentation on their projects. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 5:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ane McGarvin Deputy City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Judie Hammerstad, Mayor City Council Information Session Minutes Page 11 of 11 July 9, 2001 8l