Loading...
City Council Minutes - 01/11/2010 - Special Meeting with LO Agenda Item No. L/ , Meeting of. ! � JOINT MEETING LAKE OSWEGO AND TIGARD CITY COUNCILS January 11, 2010 MINUTES Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special joint City Council meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. on January 11, 2010, in the West End Building, Willamette Room, 4101 Kruse Way. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Johnson, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney. Councilor Hennagin was excused. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder, Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director; Jane Heisler, LOIS Communications Director 2. Welcome and Introductions Mayor Hoffman welcomed Mayor Craig Dirksen, Councilors.Gretchen Buehner and Nick Wilson, and City Manager Craig Prosser from Tigard. He encouraged attendance at Rail volution 201.0, the 15-year old regional conference started by Congressman Earl Blumenauer that has gone international (October 19 - 21, 2010, Portland). He introduced GB Arrington, an international expert on transit-oriented development (TOD) and a former employee of TriMet, now working for PB Placemaking Group. He mentioned that both he and Mayor Dirksen heard Mr. Arrington's presentation at last year's Rail-volution., 3. GB Arrington presentation on Transit Oriented Development Mr. Arrington gave a PowerPoint presentation. He mentioned that he has worked on transit oriented developments (TODs) in the Portland region since the 1970s. He reviewed the services offered by his company (p.1, Slid'e 3). He defined placemaking as the process that linked transportation, land use planning, and development to create livable communities of lasting value (p.1, Slide 2). He indicated that he would discuss transit-oriented development (TOD), pedestrian oriented development(POD), and development-oriented transit (DOT) (p.1, Slide 4). He discussed the challenges facing TOD in the U.S (p.1, Slide 6). He cited the Sysco Systems headquarters in Silicon Valley, CA, as an example of TAD (transit adjacent development), the more common type of transit development in the U.S. He noted the complete disconnect between the land use pattern oriented to cars and the presence of the transit station. He indicated that TOD was still illegal in the majority of transit stops in the U.S. because communities left in place suburban auto-oriented zoning codes that require low density setbacks and high parking ratios.. He discussed the characteristics of developments shaped by transit (p.2, Slide 1). He commented that because cars would still make the majority of trips in the Portland region, they needed to design developments to work for both the car and transit. He reviewed the fundamentals of a good TOD in creating a great place centered around transit (p.2, Slide 3), citing Orenco as a good example. He discussed the need to plan TODs as districts (p.2, Slide 5) using a more,complex and broader strategy in linking places together. He discussed why Orenco Station worked as a TOD and the Round did not (p.2, Slide 6). He noted that Orenco had a broad strategy covering 190 acres with a variety of uses. The Round was surrounded by discontinuous parking lots and auto-oriented development in downtown Beaverton. He commented that the challenge was how to create a district around the Round. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13 January 11, 2010 He mentioned the importance of the market in TOD (p.3, Slide 2)'. He indicated that TOD was the top',investment prospect in the U.S. because it held its,Value.well irrespective of the economic times: He described the TOD market as empty:nesters and young urban professionals at higher income levels'. He observed that the challenge,was to create housing with a variety of price points in order to build TODs for everybody. He discussed theedecline in U.S. household sizes since 1950 (p.2, Slide 3). He observed that a 30% market demand in the U..S.for walkable communities and a housing market of less than 2% walkable communities indicated a disconnect in terms of whom the market was supplying. He contended that, given the amount of single family home housing stock already built, a community could meet the market demand without building any new single family homes. He reviewed the results of a survey of TOD residents on why they moved into a TOD (p.3, Slide 4). He noted that developers.sold TODs to residents on the convenience of being able to walk to buy a pint of milk, as opposed to selling individual residences. He mentioned the Orenco developer's claim that one could walk from Orenco to Hawaii by taking MAX to the airport. He presented the six principles of successful TODs (p.3, Slide 6). He discussed the specifics underlying the first principle of medium to high density (p.4, Slide 1). He mentioned that people often asked him how many dwelling units per acre a TOD should have in meeting this first principle. He explained that he refused to answer that question because the amount of density depended on the place. He noted.that Hillsboro, Gresham, and Portland have all adopted the effective minimum density strategy. He discussed the best example of a TOD: the Rosslyn-,Ballston corridor with its five transit stations just outside.of Washington, D.C. (p.4, Slide 2) He explained that one reason for its success was the compact-that the cities made with the neighborhoods to concentrate density and economic development,around the stations and thus preserve the neighborhoods. He noted that'changing_land use.on this scale also changed transportation behavior, which was one of the real payoffs of TOD. He indicated that in Arlington County, which built TODs, 73% of the people walked to transit in contrast to Fairfax County, which put the rail line in the middle of the freeway; where 15%walked to transit (p.4; Slide 2). He mentioned the New York Times statement that`the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor continued to remain resilient in the worst recession in decades (0.4, Slide 3). He discussed specifics underlying the second TOD principle of a mix of uses, which was different from mixed uses(p.4,Slide 4). He indicated that prohibiting auto-oriented uses in the areas closest to transit meant eliminating drive-throughs at banks or fast food restaurants, but not the businesses themselves. He gave the example of Market Common at the Clarendon Station in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, which was a mixed-use development located in an old Sears store (p.4, Slide 5). He mentioned that a key element had been the developer working closely with the neighborhoods to get their support, as this part of suburban Washington, D.C., housed people with lots of power. He discussed the specifics underlying the third TOD principle of compact pedestrian-oriented (p.4, Slide 6). He indicated the importance of blocks sized so that pedestrians could walk around them in five minutes, which challenged the development.community that always wanted as big a block as possible. He mentioned that downtown Portland's blocks of 200' by 200' were actually too tight to workin today's market, which liked a block length of 320' to 400'. He observed that building buildings out to the edge presented a challenge to planners who wanted all edges activated by'ground floor retail. However, there was only so much market for active ground floor retail, and the challenge was to figure out how much was enough. He.mentioned a rule of thumb that active main streets were usually about 600 feet long, as were malls, because it Was difficult to get continuous pedestrian activity for more than 600 feet. He presented a graphic illustrating intensity of uses on a pedestrian scale from the core through the center to the edge.(p. 5,, Slide 1). He reviewed the Distance and Mode Share chart (p.5, Slide City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 January 11, 2010' 2). He noted that every 100 feet away from the transit station;`the mode share of office dropped by 1%, which was why TODs should locate office as close,to.the station as possible and put the residential units further away. He explained that people would.walk°further to their residences than they would,to their jobs. He discussed the specifics underlying the fourth TOD principle of an active defined center(p.5, Slide 3). He explained that the number of hours of activity depended on the personality of the community, which was different for every community. He described the Bloomington Central TOD in Minnesota, which was an adaptive reuse of a suburban office park at the stop between the airport and the Mall of America (p.5, Slide 4). He discussed the specifics underlying the fifth.TOD principle of limited, managed parking (p.5, Slide 5). He commented that parking was the hardest thing to manage in a TOD. He indicated that getting rid of maximum and minimum parking ratios was an effective strategy. He suggested doing parking utilization studies to reduce the amount of parking when managing parking by district, as opposed to by building. He reviewed the data backing up the known fact that TODs created less traffic (p.5, Slide 6). He indicated that the challenge was to create building codes and assess impact fees that treated everyone the same. He presented the numbers illustrating the inequity of charging traffic impact fees for TODs based on the ITE manual trip generation numbers for multi-family units because TOD residents behaved differently (p.6, Slide 1). He observed that cities also sized their streets twice as wide as they needed to be for TODs. He discussed the specifics underlying the sixth TOD principle of public leadership (p.6, Slide 2). He emphasized the,need to focus on implementing the plan, rather than simply having a plan. He presented the example of Arlington Heights, a community outside of Chicago with a revitalized downtown and Unirail for its transit (p.6, Slide 3). He indicated that this community was a very affluentcommunity of around 100,000 in population. He discussed the principles behind development oriented transit (p.6, Slide 5). He commented that Tigard should.be fighting over where to locate the stations because the stations defined the most important places. He indicated that he wanted TriMet to do a better job with the stations because civic architecture placemaking should be a part of the process and add value to the community. He discussed auto-oriented transit. He compared Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C. (a good example of transit) with Branch Avenue, an auto-oriented transit station built in 2000 in Washington, D.C. (p.7, Slide 1). He presented a plan map showing the differences between an auto-oriented station with parking next to the station and a development-oriented station with development next to the station (p.7, Slide 2). He mentioned that both station types had the same amount of parking. He observed that commuters were creatures of habit, tending to park in the same place, whether it was adjacent to the platform or not. He presented a graphic illustrating the equation of three steps: making a place, connecting to the community; and making transit work(p.7, Slide 3). He indicated that the order did not matter as long as a community did all three. He emphasized the need for people to own the responsibility for each of the three steps. He showed a graphic illustrating how TOD could work in creating a sense of arrival and creating a connection back to the community (p.7, Slide 4). He discussed the preferred hierarchy in the US for the more progressive transit agencies (p.7, Slide 5), which.reversed the earlier hierarchy in putting pedestrians on top and park and rides at the bottom. ,He mentioned that some transit agencies still emphasized storing cars as a way to get to transit, citing the 119 new miles of transit RTD in Denver was building and the 22,000 new parking.spaces. He observed that the Portland region had less than 4,000 parking spaces for transit. He spoke of,the importance of deciding who had the responsibility for what part of a TOD (the transit, the local agencies, and the private developer) in looking for a seamless integration between City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 January 11, 2010 the three spheres (p.7, Slide 6). He discussed how to make transit behave, starting with design (p.8, Slide 1). He commented that it was more important to have a great destination than to get there,quickly. He described the characteristics for a good transit station (p.8, Slide 3). He discussed looking at a station from"an engineer's point of view versus the DOT's.point of view (p.8, Slide 4). He indicated that the design process needed both those points of view because the transit agency would stay Within the.right-of=way but the community wanted the station to fit into the community. He,discussed considerations for station,locations (p.8, Slide 5). He presented four different strategies for station identities in placemaking (p.8, Slide 6). He cited Pioneer Square in Portland as:the best station in Portland in terms of a station as a place in and of itself. He recalled that, as the Tri_Met staff person in charge of designing Pioneer Square, he simply turned the design over to the Friends of Pioneer Square who designed an invisible station. He discussed designing for development. He indicated that the Fruitvale Transit Village in the San Francisco BART system had an efficient transit station on one side and a revitalized low income community on the other side (p.9, Slides 2-5). Unfortunately,.the design let the people get to their cars without going through the retail development. He commented that sometimes transportation could be too efficient. He reviewed the ten principles of development-oriented transit that his firm used in Baltimore (p.9, Slide 6). He discussed an example from New Zealand (p.10, Slide 3) in which they seamlessly integrated the underground commuter rail station with the above ground development as one pedestrian environment. He noted that it cost $100 billion to bury the station, but they got a 10 to 1 return on their investment in this redevelopment of a brown field. He described how Waitakere in suburban Auckland addressed the challenge facing most commuter rail systems of getting riders from one side of the tracks to the other side (p.10, Slides 1- 2). He described their solution as more about making a community connection than about TOD but noted that it was a good example of creative problem solving. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Buehner observed that.Tigard had large senior citizen communities whose residents could not walk very far. She asked if Mr. Arrington has seen a situation of transit in large concentrated areas of seniors who needed the transit but had trouble getting to the station. Mr. Arrington concurred that America was aging but noted that there were a lot more active seniors as well. He mentioned that his firm has done a lot of work in south Florida with its high senior population, and that AARP was a strong advocate for TODs as active mixed use places that did not require a car. John Surrett commented that it did not make sense to him that TODs worked if the population was aging and leaving the employment base, and yet TODs put employment closest to the stations. He questioned_the application of Mr. Arrington's TOD examples from the Washington, D.C. area to Lake Oswego, given that those areas had high population growth and federal government employment. He indicated that he saw a disconnect between those examples and what would make a TOD successful in Lake Oswego, given Mr. Arrington's assumptions. Mr. Arrington concurred that the City would need to scale a TOD to what was appropriate in Lake Oswego. He reiterated that each community needed to answer the right amount of density question for itself. He referenced Silverton, OR, the town where he grew up, as an example of a very walkable downtown. He stated that these principles worked in walkable compactspaces and for all ends of the demographic groups. He encouraged citizens to keep an open mind about the opportunity in front of the community and to work with the Council on future developments. Councilor Jordan commented that she has wondered about the planners' insistence of retail always on the bottom and other uses on top because of the question of how much retail could any one community take. She asked if a 200 to 400 foot stretch of retail mixed with office or apartment City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 January 11, 2010 vestibules types of uses, followed by another stretch of retail would work. She asked if there was a way to make sure that a retail establishment was viable because it was surrounded by other retail, yet not strung out so far that it was not where active people went. Mr. Arrington reiterated that the mixed use was the most difficult part to do. He spoke of the importance of working with experienced developers with a good track record, such as Lake Oswego working with Gramor on Lakeview Village. He explained that retail required lots of cars and lots of rooftops; therefore, the City needed to determine what its market could support. He observed that planners fell into the trap of ground floor retail as the way to create active walkable places when:there were other ways to energize the street edge or to be more strategic about the placement of retail. He mentioned that they knew from studies that, as density and mix of uses increased, people would walk further. Therefore; retail could be an effective strategy to pull people into other areas, yet one still had to have the market fundamentals to support the retail. He said that a problem with a lot of planning is that it did not return to the market fundamentals in locating retail. Councilor Jordan mentioned that the real estate listings in Denver now listed a walkability score for the homes for sale. Mr. Arrington indicated that there was a national website that provided walkability scores for neighborhoods. Councilor Wilson observed that, even though Tigard was probably five years out from the actual design on a potential light rail project, the City actively promoted downtown and corridor development. He asked to what degree they could make assumptions about where stations would stand. Mr. Arrington said that he believed it was the job of the cities to tell the transit agencies where the stations ought to be, as land use came before transportation. He indicated that the way to do that was to make the right supportive land use decisions, as well as be willing to help pay for an extra station if the City wanted stations closer together than the transit agencies did. Mr. Arrington discussed the Rosslyn-Ballston TOD as an example of a jurisdiction (Arlington County) putting up money ($100 million) to move the planned alignment of the rail line from a surface alignment down the middle of the freeway to an underground alignment under Wilson Blvd in order to create its vision of dense walkable TODs. He indicated that, whether or not Tigard put up money, the City needed to do the planning and indicate to Metro and its regional partners that it knew what made sense and that it was taking steps today to reinforce the success of the future project. He explained that 40% of project justification was land use and economic development. He said that when he was at TriMet he wrote the original land use framework that the federal government now used as the largest single measure in its evaluations. He encouraged the Council to plan and implement its plan in the hope that people would put the stations in the right places. Carolyne Jones asked what experience Mr. Arrington had with developments in sloped areas, given that his examples were all in level places. Mr. Arrington commented that most TODs did happen on flat places. He mentioned Arvana, an old gold town that was now a Denver suburb, which put the parking for its TOD on the side of a hill. Councilor Buehner asked whether the significant slope issues faced by both Lake Oswego and Tigard argued for an underground project. Mr. Arrington pointed out that going underground became very expensive very quickly. He cautioned the Councils to be careful in doing any undergrounding, and to make sure that they would get a good return on that investment. He spoke of making what flat or compact areas they had special places and locating uses on hills that people would walk further for, such as residential. He referenced.Tysons Corner as an example of a successful TOD with,a number of hills (p.10, Slides 4-6). He said that part of the challenge was how to organize the land uses so that they were transit-friendly and still within walking distance. He mentioned that they supplemented the TOD in Tysons Corner with streetcars and buses to meet that challenge. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 January 11, 2010 Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 7:05 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. 4. Water Project Update Mr. Komarek gave a PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the location and nature of the facilities involved in the Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership Project (p.1, Slide 1). He indicated that the intake facility on the Clackamas River in Gladstone pumped water through a 27-inch diameter pipeline to the water treatment plant in West Linn. Following treatment to drinking water standards, the system pumped the water over 35,000 feet of pipeline to Lake Oswego's Waluga Reservoir for transmittal to Tigard's distribution system via the Bonita Road pump station. He reviewed the drivers behind the cities entering into this partnership as individual entities, (p.2, Slide 3), as partners, and as regional entities (p.2, Slide 4). He presented an organizational chart of the partnership (p.3, Slide 5),. He indicated that Councilors Tierney and Johnson represented Lake-Oswego on the Oversight Committee with Councilors Buehner and Webb representing Tigard'. He said that he and Kari Duncan (Lake Oswego Water Plant Manager) represented Lake Oswego on the Technical Committee with Dennis Koellermeier(Tigard Public Works Director) and Rob Murchison representing Tigard. He explained that the charge of the Technical Committee was to work with the Program Team, to meet periodically with the Oversight Committee, and to meet with a proposed Citizen Sounding Board. He introduced Jon Holland of Brown & Caldwell, the firm retained by the City to act as the program manager. He indicated that the Brown & Caldwell team would work as an extension of the Lake Oswego Water Team; which was comprised of himself(Project Director), David Prock (Deputy Director), Jane Heisler(Communications Director), Eric Day (Associate Planner), and Laura Barrie (Administrative Assistant). Mr. Holland explained that they called their team a 'program management team' as opposed to a `project management team' because the partnership involved six interrelated projects that comprised the overall program. He indicated their intent to capitalize on efficiency opportunities by rolling together some of the repetitive tasks common to all six projects up to the program level. He reviewed the five basic functional areas: public outreach, program information, permits, project definition, and construction .management. With,respect to Project Definition, he noted that the team would work collaboratively with the Councils and their staffs to define the projects' vision in order to start the permitting process and to make the decisions necessary to inform the design engineers doing the actual design work what they would be designing, the costs, and the schedule. He mentioned that, in taking a holistic view Of Construction Management, the team intended to leverage resources in order to save costs and accelerate the schedule. He noted that, while the design engineers and contractors comprised the extended program team, the City of Lake Oswego as the managing agency, and not the Brown & Caldwell program team, would contract with those firms. He reviewed the action steps anticipated for the program team over the next six months (p.3'r Slide 6). He,said that Terry Buckholz from Integrated Water Solutions would present on the permit process, Clar.k.Worth from Barney&Worth would discuss the public communications strategy, and Jack Warburton from Brown & Caldwell would discuss selecting the water treatment process. He commented that their need to determine the pipeline routes through surveying and geotechnical exploration dovetailed with getting out front with their communications strategy. He noted that Lake Oswego had the lead on the water rights process. Ms. Buckholz presented a graphic illustrating the 42 different types of permits required for the six project components (p.4, Slide 7). She mentioned water rights, environmental permits, land use permits from six jurisdictions, easements and encroachments, and design approvals. She City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 January'11, 2010 reviewed the traditional permit acquisition process (p.4, Slide 8), or 'hub and spoke' process that was neither collaborative, nor integrated, nor predictable. She mentioned the collaborative and integrated permit acquisition process they developed originally for obtaining environmental permits. She emphasized its predictability in that the agencies would agree on time frames within which they would review documentation and provide comments and concurrence. Also, agencies could not change their actions later on just because they`Wanted to; the Partnership program itself would have to change for the concurring agencies to impose additional conditions. She discussed the specific factors that the Partnership would include in developing this collaborative permit process (p.5, Slides 9-10). She said that thei team would start on it right away in order to get through the process before the cities made large investments in the program design. She indicated that the process' focus on scientifically based and unbiased information was key in getting buy-in from the permitting;agencies. She emphasized that, while the process obtained broad advisory input from those agencies, it also limited their concurrence at the different steps in the process to their legal authority. She mentioned that, while she has been leading these types of collaborative processes around the statefor 12 years, this process included a new factor: an agreement signed by all the agencies agreeing to their review time frame, their input timeframes, and their points of concurrence. She cited the successful implementation of this kind of process for the Columbia River Crossing and the Tualatin Basin Water Supply projects. She indicated that the permit acquisition process would take three and a half years (p.6, Slide 11), at the end of which the cities would know the program mitigation requirements before investing money in design. She mentioned that most contentious part of the environmental permitting process would be how much water the cities could withdraw from the Clackamas River during the critical flowperiods. At this point the program team would have good idea of the overall impacts of the program-and probable mitigation requirements. She said that another key point would be the biological opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which would set the required'mitigation measures and withdrawal restrictions for the water intake. 9 COUNCIL.QUESTIONS Ms. Buckholtz confirmed to Councilor Jordan that this process did not allow one agency to trump another agency by making a change on any given issue after the program team got approvals on the issue. She indicated that agencies also could not make changes once the cities were into the design process, unless the cities changed their program. She said that the program team would use ecological functions and values in evaluating the impact information so that the agencies could not require unnecessary mitigation by the cities. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that.rnitigation would be required because the program would impact the water withdrawal from the Clackamas River. She clarified that neither the upcoming court case:nor the Oregon Water Resource Department would handle the mitigation issue because the program required obtaining federal permits (Endangered Species Act regulation by NMFS) in addition to.State water permits. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that there was a template for the collaborative environmental process agreement, which the program team was in the process of redoing right now. She said that the precedents for the agreement were the Columbia River Crossing and the Tualatin Basin Water Supply projects. Councilor Buehner"asked whether Tigard's aquifer storage could help expedite the environmental program by reducing the amount of water taken out of the Clackamas River during the summer. Ms. Buckholz'indicated that it had potential, and was something that the program team would look at during Program Definition. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 January 11, 2010 Ms. Buckholz'indicated to Councilor Wilson that the impact on endangered species would be the most contentious item in terrnssof impact, as the rest ofthe impacts were straightforward. She indicated_ to Mayor Dirksen that,she did not have.a pictorial representation of the new collaborative system. e COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Heisler mentioned that she would handle the communications for the project from the City side. She reviewed the foundational elements of a communications strategy (p.6, Slide 12). She commented that this program had all the ingredients to demand a comprehensive, clear, and ongoing communications strategy throughout the process. She cited several reasons,for public outreach', including a long project spanning several years, a huge geographic area with many stakeholders, an expensive project, and Council decisions needing public support. She spoke of public input helping to balance the extreme technical nature of the program with other considerations. Mr.Worth concurred with Ms. Heisler's summary of the program challenges requiring public outreach. He commented that the most important challenges were the partnership nature of this project, involving two jurisdictions cooperating with each other, and the fact that key facilities, such as the water intake facility and the water treatment plant, were located in other jurisdictions. He observed that the many phases of this lengthy and technically complex program would engage a different set of people interested in each phase. In addition, the city councils would change over the next six years. Therefore, the educational process would have to continue. He reviewed the,six-month goalsfor the communications strategy (January—June 2010) (p.7, Slides '13-14). 'He spoke of developing materials flexible enough to use throughout the process. He mentioned uncomplicating the project so that the average citizen could understand the key issues. He noted the complex technical decisions faced by the policy makers. He commented that they would'depend on the news media to communicate information to the vast public, and therefore, the news media needed to go through the community education process as well. He referenced the purple handout listing the guidelines developed during the last phase of this project's planning, which the program team would revisit and update to reflect the current values of the communities. He reviewed the!schedule for the first six months (p.8, Slide 15), noting that many actions started immediately, such as the citizen.sounding board and public opinion research. He indicated that, while there has been outreach to key stakeholders and policy makers, the program team members did not know'what the ratepayers thought about the project. He mentioned using focus groups and telephone surveys to survey public opinion and to verify the values and principles. He discussed the proposed citizen sounding board (p.8, Slide 16). He described it as a group of citizens who could provide advice to the program director and technical people based'on their community expertise. It was a way for the team to test ideas ahead of time. He reviewed the purposes of the sounding board (p.9, Slide 17). He mentioned the program website coming online this month (p.9, Slide 18), and encouraged the Council members to visit it for more information and to direct citizens to it. • WATER TREATMENT DECISION PROCESS Mr. Warburton reviewed the goals for this decision (p.10, Slide 19). He noted that this process had a broader scope than found in the traditional engineering evaluation processes. He observed that,mon etizing'the environmental and community factors was often a.challenge. He referenced their successfulwork in Victoria, B.C., in which they helped 26 jurisdictions adopt a wastewater management'plan by taking the triple bottom line and monetizing the elements in that program. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 January 11', 2010 He reviewed the steps of the overall process (p.10, Slide 20). He clarified that `experts' did not mean technical experts but rather people with community and city knowledge. He noted the three workshops scheduled in the next six months. He described the process they would use to incorporate community values into their evaluation (p.11, Slide 21). He noted that they had the same four quadrants identified in the communications: strategy:technical, community, environmental, and economic. He indicated that they would develop specific measures for each quadrant and begin to identify the project scope as they received public input regarding community values on items such as whether the project should be carbon neutral or just provide information on carbon emissions for all alternatives. He stated that the first big decision was on which technology was appropriate for the water treatment process. He mentioned the various alternatives available (p.11, Slide 22), noting that the cost'increased with the complexity of the technology. Mayor Hoffman commented that, despite Lake Oswego taking water from the Clackamas River for years; no one has ever talked to the Council about a need for the advanced filtration processes. Mr. Komarek confirmed that the direct filtration process used currently by the City met current regulations. Mr. Warburton clarified that they knew that legislators were looking at regulating more pollutants in the environment than covered by the current regulations. This process was to provide the Councils with the information they needed to make their decision. Councilor Buehner recalled Tigard's consideration in 1999 to 2000 of joining in on the Wilsonville Willamette River treatment plant, which used the same four-step process. She asked if there was newer technology for the Councils to consider. Mr. Warburton explained that most of the advanced oxidation processes were developed for industrial situations. He commented that the degree of treatment chosen by the Councils would depend on various factors, such as the water quality, future investment, and potential future regulations. Mr. Warburton indicated that the expert team, which would serve as the foundation of the process, would be comprised of City staff, process experts from other firms; and a public health and records expert. He noted the Oversight Committee and the Citizen Sounding Board, which would bring the public perspective to the process,(p.12, Slide 23). He mentioned the specifics proposed to engage the experts and the benefit to the Councils of receiving a recommendation that was both supportable and sustainable through potential criticisms. ® COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Jordan asked how involved Clackamas County would be in helping shape what went in above the City's water intake facility on the Clackamas River. She observed that a water treatment plant located above the City's intake point would change their water treatment process. She asked if there was a way to design the plant with sufficient flexibility to switch to the newer and more affordable technologies that might become available later on. Mr. Warburton speculated that, with the emergent issues now coming under regulatory scrutiny, the people in the Clackamas River watershed would focus more on not creating problems downstream. He indicated that it was a matter of good engineering and good design to build flexibility into the plant to accommodate new technologies. Mr. Komarek mentioned Lake Oswego's long-standing membership in the Clackamas River Water Providers, which funded a variety of projects in the watershed. He noted Lake Oswego's partnership with Water Environmental Services for Clackamas County and with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). He referenced the USGS's recent multi-year study assessment of pollutant sources in the watershed, particularly pesticides.and herbicides. He indicated that they have found those pollutants in the Clackamas River but at levels well below the thresholds requiring treatment for removal. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 January 11, 2010 He commented that one of the first and best barriers to pollutants in the water supply system was to eliminate the use of those pollutants in the watershed. He mentioned the ongoing work to develop a holistic water supply management plan to address these concerns through education and a joint process with the Clackamas River Water Basin Council. He indicated that one benefit of the expert panel would be their input into the discussion of these contaminants of concern, and how far the cities should go in removing them and in providing the flexibility to respond to future changes. He stated that this panel would help inform the Councils' decision, as well as the community. CONCLUSION Mr. Komarek reviewed the action items for the Councils (p.12, Slide 24). He mentioned Mr. Day's suggestion that they explore solar power at the treatment plant as part of sustainability. He commented that having community residents, such as Duke Castle, on the expert panel could help staff and the Councils better understand these decisions. He asked the Councils for their input regarding,the proposed action items. Ms: Heisler noted that Councilor Jordan mentioned keeping the plant flexible to accommodate future changes. Councilor Buehner advocated,for the expert panel, citing how helpful she had found them when going through the Willamette process. Councilor Tierney agreed with endorsing the communication strategy. He described the expert panel as a prudent way of approaching a complicated subject. He indicated that he did not see a reason for the citizen sounding board, as there was nothing in the literature about what its responsibilities would be. He recalled hearing comments at the Saturday Round Table stating that the City's Boards and Commissions were disconnected. Ms. Heisler commented that staff had not been clear on the sounding board's responsibilities but their intent was for the board to report to the program team, to help the team identify issues early on, and to provide feedback on alternatives. She emphasized that the board would not make recommendations. Mr. Komarek clarified that the sounding board was a staff proposal, for which they hoped to gain the support of the Councils. If staff did get that support, then they would create a clear charter statement for the group with a specific set of objectives and guidelines for interaction with the program team and take it to the Oversight Committee for review. Councilor Buehner asked if staff considered the time needed to get a citizen sounding board up to speed on the process, the need for continuity, and for a long-term membership. Mr. Komarek said that they did consider that. He cited that as a reason to keep the board's focus narrow, and aimed at specific issues. Councilor Wilson recalled that water quality had been a controversial issue during the Willamette River process. He observed that water quality has not surfaced as an issue with respect to the Clackamas River. He quoted an old adage: "The dose makes the poison." He expressed his concern that their technical ability to detect these compounds in the water far below any danger threshold might influence citizen committee members to ask for the most expensive treatment, as opposed to the necessary treatment. He spoke to carefully considering the expert and citizen members in order to avoid unnecessarily driving up the costs. Ms. Heisler noted that this process added a scientific review method to the usual process for arriving at a decision supported by the community. Mr. Komarek concurred that-this was an emotional issue. He explained that staff wanted a public health expert on the team in order to explain to the citizens exactly what detecting contaminants at extremely low levels meant. Councilor Jordan observed that the LOIS project has gone well so far precisely because the City kept the communication lines open to the community as a whole and to individuals.affected by the City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 January 11, 2010 work. She commented that she saw a citizen group as a way to measure the importance of the technical team's findings by those who would pay the bill'. ;She spoke of taking the results of that process,to larger focus groups in order to verify that the test case resonated with the whole community of Lake Oswego and Tigard. Mayor Dirksen held that the value of a citizen sounding,board would be its ability to act as a microcosm of all the residents in the water service area. 'The cities could dialog with this smaller, representative group, which could help the cities gauge the issues and identify which issues the cities should bring to the attention of the entire community. Mayor Hoffman commented that the PowerPoint slide indicated that these eight community members would be like a jury of specialists, as opposed,to typical citizens. He asked where this board fit in with respect to the Councils. Ms. Heisler stated_ that the Councils were the decision makers. She reiterated that the idea behind this proposal was to give the Councils a sustainable decision using a filter of community interest. Mr..Komarek clarified that staff did not mean to suggest another expert panel by listing fields of expertise for the sounding board (Slide 16). He explained that they were looking for citizens with those sorts of backgrounds who had their pulse of their neighborhood and could provide feedback to the program director from the grassroots level. Councilor Moncrieff stated that she shared the concerns about setting up yet another group, given that the Lake Oswego Council has learned that its existing,boards and commissions were frustrated infeeling that they did nothave sufficient opportunity for input and a meaningful contribution. She indicated that knowing that this board would have.a definite understanding of their mission made her feel more comfortable, but she was still concerned that they not duplicate an effort that they could accomplish with their existing citizen boards. Councilor Olson commented that generally, she was not in favor of more layers of government, yet in this case., given the,magnitude and impact of this project, she-thought that some citizen input was a good idea. She`indicated that she would defer to the staff recommendation on this in light of staff's experience with the LOIS project. Councilor Jordan spoke to the citizen sounding board having a.broader range of representation than professionals who mimicked the technical group, such as parents of school age children and senior citizens. She encouraged bringing in comments from those actually footing the bill and drinking the water. Ms. Heisler commented that staff had not intended a stakeholders group. Councilor Jordan asked what was the point of the group if it was not a stakeholders group in some form. Councilor Buehner indicated that she would feel more comfortable with a more sophisticated citizen group. She observed that people with professional backgrounds also had children or were neighborhood activists. She commented that it was important to have citizens who were able to grasp this verycomplicated issue. Councilor. Jordan acknowledged the point, but contended that having a degree did not necessarily guarantee interest in or comprehension of the project's complexities. She emphasized that another important characteristic, in addition to being able to understand the project, was to have some knowledge of the whole community and how the choices made by the decision makers would impact:that community. Mayor Dirksen observed that the need for this board might be different in the two cities. He mentioned that Tigard already had a representative citizen group acting as an advisory board to the Tigard City Council in its capacity as a water provider, the Intergovernmental Water Board. He said that this board has been advising the Tigard Council from the beginning on all its actions respecting this partnership. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that he thought that a citizen sounding board would be helpful through the entire process. He said that the Intergovernmental Water Board would continue acting City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 January 11, 2010 in that capacity for the Tigard Council but he was not certain how to integrate that with Lake Oswego. He suggested creating a board out of representatives from Lake Oswego's different boards and commissions. Councilor Olson suggested trying the staff suggestion and disbanding it if it did not work. She indicated that she liked Mayor Dirksen's idea of.using Tigard's board as half the membership and Lake Oswego deciding how to add its own members to that group. Ms. Heisler commented that using members from existing boards and commissions might get the depth of community knowledge Councilor Jordan mentioned. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he was okay with a citizen sounding board. Mayor Dirksen suggested to the Tigard Councilors that they consider the Intergovernmental Water Board as a partial citizen sounding board. Mr. Komarek asked if the Councils were comfortable with the program team developing a charter statement and charge to determine on what basis to select these Lake Oswego community members. He noted that Tigard appeared to have a group already that might fit for their community. Mayor Hoffman commented that the Councilors were talking about taking people from existing boards and commissions. Mr. Powell indicated to Mr. Komarek that a citizen sounding board formed to give feedback to the project director would not constitute a public body under the public meetings law. However, if Tigard took an existing public body and combined it with a Lake Oswego group, he thought that Tigard's City Attorney would advise the Council to consider a meeting of the sounding board the same as a quorum meeting of the public body, and thus subject to the public meeting law. Councilor Jordan pointed out that a citizen sounding board comprised of a few representatives from the Tigard board and a few Lake Oswego representatives would be an unofficial group that represented the broader picture of each of the service areas. The representatives would then report to their own Council. Ms. Heisler suggested that staff take the feedback they have received tonight, take another try at the citizen sounding board, and run it through the Oversight Committee to see if staff was on the right track. Mr. Komarek indicated that he heard Council support for the staff approach to the communication strategy and for an expert panel regarding the water treatment plant process. He said that staff could discuss how to select representatives from standing committees for a sounding board. He noted that one of the challenges was how to make decisions quickly in order to move the process forward. He indicated to Councilor Jordan that staff was thinking of 8 to 12 members on the citizen board. He indicated to Councilor Olson.that staff estimated a $5,000 stipend for the experts on the panel, which would meet over the next six to eight months and generate a report. He said that the intent was to cover the participants' costs. He mentioned a four to five member panel for a possible total expenditure of$25,000. Bill, an audience member, asked for clarification of the recommendation to allow the firms of members of the expert panel to bid on the planning project. He suggested that it would be helpful to know whether the person advocating for a particular treatment technique worked for a firm that sold the materials behind that treatment. Mr. Komarek explained that the expert panel was part of the evaluation process. He commented that generally engineering firms and manufacturing firms were not the same, and therefore he was not concerned that there would be a potential conflict. Mr. Komarek stated that staff would be clear in the charge statement on where and why the program team wanted the expert panel's input. 5. ADJOURNMENT City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 January' 11, 2010 1 Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie /s/ Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON April 6, 2010 Kristin Johnson /s/ Kristin Johnson, Council President City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 January 11, 2010