Loading...
Agenda Item - 2021-08-03 - Number 5.1 - Resolution 21-29, Natural Areas Preservation Charter Referendum503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Subject: Resolution 21-29, Natural Areas Preservation Charter Referendum Meeting Date: August 3, 2021 Report Date: July 23, 2021 Staff Member: Martha Bennett, City Manager Ivan Anderholm, Parks Director Department: City Manager’s Office Parks and Recreation Department Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ☒Motion ☐Approval☐Public Hearing ☐Denial☐Ordinance ☐None Forwarded ☒Resolution ☒Not Applicable☐Information Only Comments: Referendum has been shared and reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Advisory Board. ☐Council Direction☐Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 21-29. Recommended Language for Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 21-29. Project / Issue Relates To: n/a Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question): ☐Council Goals/Priorities ☐Adopted Master Plan(s)☒Not Applicable ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL Proposed Natural Areas Preservation Charter Referendum for November 2021 ballot. BACKGROUND During the June 15, 2021 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a Parks Referendum Measure for Council consideration. The proposed measure was to provide Council with an alternative to Measure 20201N- 1. 5.1 Page 2 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city During the July 6, 2021 City Council Meeting, Council adopted Resolution 21-23, receiving and filing Initiative Measure 20201N- 1. Beginning July 6, City Council has 30 days to decide whether Council would like to refer the initiative or refer the initiative and refer a competing measure to the voters. DISCUSSION Community Engagement In order to prepare the proposed referendum, staff alongside a hired consultant, Praxis Political, underwent community engagement and outreach. The public engagement aimed to understand the community’s priorities related to parks and natural spaces, as well as test measure characteristics and language that could be included. We sought feedback on: • Current protections for parks and natural spaces • Methods for public input in the upkeep and preservation of our parks and natural spaces • Ensuring equitable access to parks and natural spaces for all residents • Complementing the preservation of parks and natural spaces with priorities such as public safety, infrastructure, and livability To achieve this, Praxis hosted two community listening sessions, online community survey, direct outreach conversations to key stakeholders, and conducted phone polling to likely voters. In total, Praxis received 355 survey respondents, 26 outreach conversations, 405 phone polling of likely November 2021 voters, and 26 listening session participants. Proposed Parks Referendum The proposed referendum reflects the feedback and insights gathered from the community engagement process. Key themes that were added based on the community engagement: • The preservation and maintenance of parks and natural spaces are a key aspect of the high quality of life in Lake Oswego. • A desire to protect water quality and wildlife habitat. • The importance of ensuring parks and natural spaces are accessible for people of various abilities. • A focus on the need to prepare for climate change, particularly the need to prevent and contain wildfires, and protect wildfire response capabilities. Additionally, the proposed referendum would prohibit construction of new athletic facilities, commercial logging, construction of new public streets and roads, and construction or installation of new telecommunications facilities in designated Natural Areas. Page 3 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Lastly, the proposed referendum has a comprehensive definition of Natural Areas that can be applied to a number of City park and/or natural areas within a City park. The proposed measure requires the Council to adopt a map identifying protected areas (attachment 4) 60 days after passage by voters. If both this measure and Initiative Measure 20201N- 1 are approved, only the measure with the greater number of affirmative votes will become effective FISCAL IMPACT To prepare for the option of the Parks Referendum for Council, staff hired Praxis Political for the community engagement process. If City Council moves forward with the Parks Referendum for the November 2021 ballot, the City will end all expenditures, including staff time, on the measure(s) effective immediately. RECOMMENDATION If Council agrees with the Caption, Question, Summary, and Explanatory Statement for the measure as is, staff recommends to move to adopt Resolution 21-29. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 21-29 2. Community Engagement Briefing Memo, Provided by Praxis 3. Parks Measure Side-by-Side Comparison Table 4. Proposed Parks Map of Natural Areas 5. Proposed Caption, Question, Summary, and Explanatory Statement Resolution 21-29 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION 21-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO SUBMITTING INITIATIVE MEASURE 2020IN-1 TO CITY ELECTORS AND REFERING A COMPETING MEASURE TO CITY ELECTORS. WHEREAS, Initiative Measure 2020IN-1 was received and filed by the Council on July 6, 2021 through Resolution 21-23; and WHEREAS, ORS 250.325 requires the Council to “adopt or reject the measure unless the measure is required to be submitted to city electors under…state law”; and WHEREAS, ORS 221.210 allows the people to initiate amendments to the charter of a city; and WHEREAS, ORS 250.325 allows the Council to refer a competing measure at the same election as an initiated measure; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. The above recitals are incorporated into this resolution. Section 2. The Council declines to adopt Initiative Measure 2020IN-1 and shall submit the Measure to the electors on the November 2, 2021 election. Section 3. The Council hereby adopts a competing measure for the November 2, 2021 election. Said measure is attached to this Resolution and adopted by reference. Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the ______ day of ______________________, 2021. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Joseph M. Buck, Mayor ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution 21-29 Page 2 of 2 ATTEST: ___________________________________ Kari Linder, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Jason Loos, City Attorney CHAPTER X: PRESERVATION OF NATURAL AREAS. CITY COUNCIL REFERENDUM July 27, 2021 1 Chapter 1 - LAKE OSWEGO CHARTER CHAPTER X. PRESERVATION OF NATURAL AREAS Section 41. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to preserve, protect, restore and maintain the ecological functions, water quality and wildlife habitat, and the scenic and aesthetic qualities of Natural Areas that are owned by the City of Lake Oswego while also allowing for their use and enjoyment. Section 42. Definitions. As used in this Chapter: Athletic Facility means any area, field, or building that is graded, leveled, constructed, or equipped for use in sports or athletics. Fields for baseball, soccer, or football and tennis courts are examples of Athletic Facilities. Commercial Logging: Removal of trees for the purpose of selling timber or wood. Selective cutting to advance the overall health of the forest and promote ecosystem restoration is permitted. Natural Area means a natural area park or open space owned by the City of Lake Oswego that is managed or maintained to retain or improve its natural condition, environmental value, ecological function, to prevent habitat deterioration, to prevent and adapt to climate change, and to reduce the risk of wildfire in the community. A natural area may provide a scenic, aesthetic appearance and provide passive recreational uses and educational opportunities. No later than 60 days after ratification of this Charter Amendment, the City Council shall hold a public hearing and adopt by ordinance a map of the Natural Areas of each of these park properties. At a minimum, this map will include Springbrook Park; Cooks Butte; Woodmont Nature Park; Hallinan Woods; Stevens Meadow; Bryant Woods; Canal Acres; Cornell Natural Area; Glenmorrie Greenway; Kerr Open Space; Lamont Springs; River Run I and II; Southshore; Kelly Creek; Pennington Park; Sunny Slope; and the natural areas of West Waluga, East Waluga, George Rogers, Iron Mountain and Freepons Parks. Public Street and Road is defined as a public road, street, highway or other public way constructed or used for vehicular travel. Telecommunications Facility means any building, antenna, tower, mast, pole or structure that is used for radio, cellular, broadband, or telephone communication. This includes any communications equipment attached to other structures such as street lights or buildings. Section 43. Limitations on Development. The City of Lake Oswego shall manage the Natural Areas to preserve and enhance the biological, hydrological, ecological and environmental functions and promote a healthy ecosystem. The City ATTACHMENT 1 A CHAPTER X: PRESERVATION OF NATURAL AREAS. CITY COUNCIL REFERENDUM July 27, 2021 2 shall also manage Natural Areas in a way that protects their scenic and aesthetic qualities and provides access to nature for the public, consistent with their environmental values and ecological function. The following facilities and activities are prohibited in Natural Areas: construction of new Athletic Facilities, Commercial Logging, construction of new Public Streets and Roads, and construction or installation of new Telecommunication Facilities. The following activities are allowed: 1. Maintenance, stewardship and education activities that promote ecological restoration and enhancement, eliminate invasive species, restore native species, and mitigate fire hazards. This includes thinning and removal of hazard trees and removal of non-native nuisance and invasive species of plants. 2. Maintenance and renovation of trails for walking, hiking, wheelchairs and mobility devices, horseback riding, and non-motorized bicycle travel to allow public enjoyment of the Natural Areas. Trail construction should be appropriate for the natural conditions of the natural area and the anticipated use of the trail. Construction of new trails for the above purposes is allowed after an environmental assessment by the Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Department, and review by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Advisory Board (or any successor board). 3. Construction, maintenance, renovation and replacement of picnic and sanitary facilities, boardwalks, benches and interpretive displays, where appropriate. 4. Maintenance, renovation, or replacement of any existing facility or structure not specifically listed in 2 or 3 above, including any existing telecommunications equipment used to manage the City’s utility infrastructure, and any existing road for motorized vehicles constructed before January 1, 2022 as long as the footprint of the facility, equipment, structure, street or road for motorized vehicles does not increase 5. The City of Lake Oswego shall be allowed to implement (or allow any person to implement) a park master plan for a Natural Area that was adopted before January 1, 2022. Other uses and facilities related to restoration and access to Natural Areas are allowed only after the City Council adopts, by ordinance, a property-specific master plan for a Natural Area. The property-specific master plan must spell out proposed and facilities must include findings that these proposed uses and facilities are consistent with preserving the environmental qualities and ecological function of the Natural Area, while also providing public access and enjoyment. The City must involve the public in development of any property-specific master plan. This public involvement process must include written notice to all the City’s recognized Neighborhood Associations, and written notice to property owners within 300 feet of the Natural Area as listed on the most recent property tax assessment roll, including an opportunity to offer input to the City’s Parks, Recreation, & Natural Areas Board (or any successor board), and an opportunity to present testimony at a formal public hearing. CHAPTER X: PRESERVATION OF NATURAL AREAS. CITY COUNCIL REFERENDUM July 27, 2021 3 Section 44. Severability. If a court should hold invalid or unconstitutional any clause or part of this Chapter, that holding shall not affect the remaining parts of this Chapter which are not held invalid or unconstitutional. Section 45. Application to Other Natural Areas. The City Council may designate additional City-owned properties, or portions of properties, as subject to this Chapter by ordinance. Section 46. Accessibility Regulations. With regard to the design or materials for used facilities otherwise allowed by this Chapter, if there is a conflict between any provision of this Chapter and the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or any other applicable federal, state or local regulations relating to accessibility for people with disabilities, the requirements of those regulations will prevail. Throughout the month of July 2021, Praxis Political engaged the Lake Oswego community through direct outreach, an online survey, and the hosting of two listening sessions. In addition, Praxis provided communications support for the City on the subject of the parks referendum and coordinated a statistically representative poll of Lake Oswego residents. Summary of Engagement Activities Direct Outreach Conversations Praxis developed an outreach strategy and conducted 26 individual outreach conversations with key community leaders and stakeholders. For this work, Praxis created an outreach email template and a discussion guide. Online Community Survey Praxis drafted, developed, and monitored an online survey, which was promoted across City channels, and was completed by 355 respondents. Listening Sessions Praxis hosted and facilitated two listening sessions that were promoted across City channels. The first listening session on July 15 had 12 resident-participants and the second session on July 19 had 14 resident-participants, for a total of 26 resident-participants across the sessions. Communications Support Praxis prepared information on the referendum and the community engagement efforts in the form of a one pager, a slide deck for use at the listening sessions, and language for promoting the online survey and listening sessions. Praxis will provide additional communications items, as identified by City staff, ahead of Council referral. Statistically Representative Poll of Lake Oswego Residents Praxis coordinated with Patinkin Research to conduct a multi-modal survey of 405 likely November 2021 voters in the City of Lake Oswego. The interviews were conducted via live phone (350 respondents) and text to web (55 respondents). Telephone interviews were conducted via both landline and cell phone. Cell phone interviews represent 51% of the telephone portion of the sample. Interviews were conducted July 7-11, 2021. City of Lake Oswego 2021 Parks Referendum Community Engagement Briefing Memo Prepared by Praxis Political ATTACHMENT 2 City of Lake Oswego Prospective Parks Referral Community Engagement Report Prepared By July 30, 2021 ATTACHMENT 2 A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the month of July 2021, Praxis was retained by the City of Lake Oswego to engage the community around a prospective referral the City Council is considering regarding protecting parks and natural spaces and establishing processes for making updates to those City owned properties. Praxis engaged the Lake Oswego community through the hosting of two public listening sessions, direct outreach to stakeholders, an online survey, and a statistically representative poll of Lake Oswego voters. Through these engagement efforts, Praxis found strong public support for enhanced protections of the City’s parks and natural spaces referral. Respondents were generally receptive to the approach contained in the draft referral measure being considered by the City Council. Praxis’ recommendation is for the City Council to pursue referring the measure to voters, with a few small adjustments to best meet the interests of Lake Oswego residents. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES Listening Sessions: Praxis hosted and facilitated two virtual community listening sessions that were promoted through the City’s communications resources. The first listening session on July 15 had 12 resident-participants and the second session on July 19 had 14 resident-participants. Online Community Survey: Praxis drafted, developed, and monitored an online survey, which was promoted through the community’s communications resources, and was completed by 355 respondents. Statistically Representative Poll of Lake Oswego Residents: Praxis coordinated with Patinkin Research to conduct a multi-modal survey of 405 likely November 2021 voters in the City of Lake Oswego. The interviews were conducted via live phone n=350 and text to web n=55. Telephone interviews were conducted via both landline and cell phone. Cell phone interviews represent 51% of the telephone portion of the sample. Interviews were conducted July 7-11, 2021. Direct Outreach Conversations: Praxis developed an outreach strategy and conducted 26 individual outreach conversations with key community leaders and stakeholders. For this work, Praxis developed an outreach email template and a discussion guide. Communications Support: Praxis prepared information on the referral and the community engagement efforts in the form of a one pager, a slide deck for use at the listening sessions, and language for promoting the online survey and listening sessions. 1 The protection and maintenance of parks and natural spaces are a key aspect of the high quality of life in Lake Oswego A desire to protect water quality and wildlife habitat The importance of ensuring parks and natural spaces are accessible for people of various abilities A focus on the need to prepare for climate change, particularly the need for preventative measures to prevent and contain wildfires, and protect wildfire response capabilities Overall happiness with the Parks and Recreation department, appreciation for community engagement opportunities, and a desire for more dynamic communications to have confidence their input is being valued MAJOR FINDINGS The public was consistently supportive of steps to increase the protections and environmental management of the City’s parks and natural spaces. Respondents nearly universally recognized the value of preserving these geographies for the enhancements they provide to the quality of life for local residents and value they provide in preserving the resiliency and health of the natural ecosystems. Both quantitative and qualitative methods found strong support for the City’s proposed parks referral. Residents and stakeholders want strong protections and preservation of their parks, while supporting the idea that the City must weigh the desire to protect natural spaces with the need for updates and maintenance, including restoration, stewardship, trails, and maintenance and renovation of existing facilities and structures. The common themes that arose across all forms of engagement were: KEY POLLING RESULTS The poll assessed public opinions on which elements of preservation and management are most important to voters, as well as support for both the potential City Council measure referral and the citizens’ initiative that will appear on the November 2021 ballot. Both parks measures begin with majority support. The City Council measure (69% yes; 20% no) starts out in a better position than does the citizen measure (56% yes; 27% no). City of Lake Oswego voters are interested in protecting the wildlife habitat and water quality within their parks. They are also eager to ensure equitable access to city parks for all residents, neighborhood connectivity via future trails, flexibility in regards to neighborhood livability planning, and adaptability in regards to potential challenges posed by climate change. 2 KEY COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS When asked to prioritize a series of seven topics, “Protecting water quality and wildlife habitat” and “Protecting the ability to restore and preserve natural spaces in a changing climate” were the priorities most commonly ranked the highest. “Requiring public approval to conduct any needed updates or maintenance to existing taxpayer-funded facilities located within natural spaces” was the lowest rated priority. In addition to responding to a set of ranking and multiple choice questions, respondents had the opportunity to give feedback through three short answer questions. Across these responses, common themes were: not wanting development, the desire to protect natural spaces and their habitat and the distinction between parks and natural spaces, the desire to preserve trees and tree canopies, equitable access in alignment with the Americans with Disabilities Act, methods for fire prevention and preparation for climate change, the importance of maintenance, and support for trails and trail systems. KEY COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER RESULTS Praxis worked with City staff to develop a list of key community organizations and leaders to engage about a prospective parks referendum. Praxis reached out to 74 people, including advocacy organizations across a broad spectrum (such as the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce and Disability Rights Oregon), active transportation organizations (such as The Street Trust and Oregon Walks), environmental organizations (such as Lake Oswego Sustainability Network and the Oregon Trails Coalition), all Friends of Parks groups, and all Neighborhood Associations. From this outreach, Praxis scheduled and conducted 26 engagement conversations. Praxis held 30-minute interviews with each stakeholder to discuss their priorities for the preservation and maintenance of Lake Oswego’s parks and natural spaces, their opinions on both the parks-related citizens' initiative and the City’s prospective parks referendum, and their thoughts on trail accessibility, climate change and restoration, growth and neighborhood livability, and emergency response, as it pertains to the City’s prospective measure. 3 Al Calabria, Palisades NA Alexis Barton, Tryon Creek Watershed Council Bob Brown, Blue Heron NA Christian Huettemeyer, Hallinan Heights NA Dan Anderson, Lake Grove NA Duke Castle, Lake Oswego Sustainability Network Jan Castle, Lake Oswego Sustainability Network Ellen Steel, McVey/South Shore NA Jack Halsey, Oswego Lake Watershed Council Jay Hamacheck, Lakewood NA Liz Hartman, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce Matthew Kahl, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce Michael Buck, Friends of Iron Mountain Park Nancy Gronowski, Friends of Rogerson Clematis Garden Nicole Nathan, Lake Oswego Arts Council Paul Lyons, Friends of Springbrook Park Rebecca Maese, Lake Forest NA Richard Herman, Luscher Farms Ruth Bregar, Westridge NA Steph Noll, Oregon Trails Coalition Ashton Simpson, Oregon Walks Tom Stenson, Disability Rights Oregon Stephanie Wagner, Oswego Lake Watershed Council Christopher Duncan, Parks Board Terri Preeg Rigsby, Tryon Creek Watershed Council Glendon Leverich, Tryon Creek Watershed Council Doug McKean, Parks Board KEY COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER RESULTS - Continued The full list of individuals interviewed is as follows: 4 KEY COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER RESULTS - Continued The key takeaways Praxis had from these stakeholder engagement conversations are as follows: The public is happy with the City, particularly the Parks and Recreation department “There are over 24 Friends Groups. We all work together– the city, all the friends groups, and lots of volunteer groups. I trust [the city] and when there’s a problem, the parks department is right on it.” "I’m pretty satisfied with how the city parks and recreation, and the city in general, how they have created and maintained parks. I’m very satisfied with it.“ Accessibility was a high priority for nearly every person interviewed “As someone who is on a scooter with a broken ankle, I was very glad to have had those hard surfaces. We need those to ensure access for all people. It’s a very tough thing [to access park spaces] if you don’t have the option to put in the infrastructure.” “I think the city should do exactly that [maintain accessibility in parks and natural areas]. What they need to do is find hardened surfaces that are pervious, so that water can filter through to the groundwater, but also so that it doesn’t absorb any of the chemicals or anything around… there shouldn’t be any type of motorized device with gas, oil, or chemicals to leak into the soil. The previous surfaces have to be hardened because, again, you can’t discount users who use mobility devices or those who need any even surface to walk on because of health issues. It’s all about equity.” Several respondents indicated a preference for the City’s proposed referral “I agree with the city. With urban growth boundaries and everything in the future of city management, development must happen in some capacity. A key thing as an example is widening a path so a wheelchair is accessible. I don’t know that the citizens understand how restrictive the citizens' initiative can be.” “There are problems with the language that are unclear and that can be used to really limit some of the things that could be done to protect or enhance them in the future. Urban spaces require active management to preserve them, you can’t just leave them alone.” 5 KEY COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER RESULTS - Continued Opinion was somewhat divided on how to handle parking at parks and natural spaces “Local parks don’t need parking. The bigger parks should probably have parking lots. To say you can’t put parking in is counterproductive.” "I think you want to plan - and this is planning of the natural spaces - so that you plan the spaces so that you have parking that is available to allow access that has the least amount of impact on neighbors. For some of these areas, you will have some impact. But you can plan to minimize impact and structure parking to get people off the streets. Everyone needs to remember these natural spaces belong to everyone in the city.’" “I would say no to adding more parking lots. We should not cede natural area acreage instead of parking. There is enough parking on the streets and next to parks, not really needed.” Respondents were generally supportive of making space and developments for emergency response infrastructure “We need the equipment to respond, so to restrict those things is short-sighted and the thinking is very simplistic.” “Nobody wants the antennas in the backyard, but they are necessary. The problems with the ice storm last winter showed the real problems. On the other hand, it’s important to design towers that have as small a footprint as possible.” Those interviewed overwhelmingly believed it was the City’s job to conduct any needed updates or maintenance to existing taxpayer funded facilities located in parks and natural spaces, while also believing that major changes should be put to the voters “The citizens should be able to comment on these things without a new charter amendment every time. I don’t want to see my tax dollars at work that way.” “If there’s a major design change or you’re switching a natural area over to a developed sports field– that needs to go to the voters. If we’re talking about maintaining a trail or replacing a bridge, that should just go to the parks and rec department. The city staff needs the ability to react to emergency situations.” “I think the voters should not have a say. I think that that’s why we have a city manager and a parks staff. It’s one thing to vote on a bond or funding or limit and change definitions of what’s allowed in parks and natural areas. But if the city wants to upgrade a bathroom facility, that is just a big waste of everybody’s time and money to have people vote on that.” 6 Natural Preservation Ecological Integrity Wildlife & Wildlife Corridors Minimizing Use of Pesticides and Herbicides (Toxins) and Preserving Old Trees Embracing the Historical Perspectives and Knowledge of First Peoples to this area KEY COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER RESULTS - Continued Some expressed interest in more active outreach to community partners “One sort of historic perspective regarding natural areas and the city’s investment in programming does remind me that in the past, the city of Lake Oswego had more employees working on natural areas and parks. That meant that long established organizations and stakeholders such as ourselves would have deeper relationships with them.” KEY COMMUNITY LISTENING SESSION RESULTS The two virtual listening sessions were attended by 26 residents who offered opinions on the state of existing parks and natural spaces protections, the values that should inform City approaches to management of these areas, and the merits of the proposed citizens’ initiative and City ballot measure referral. Participants engaged in an activity to identify the values they thought should be prioritized in the work of the City. Of the twelve priorities listed, the most popular priorities were: Participants also offered their feedback on a series of topics ranging from ecological preservation, residential livability, climate change, equitable access, and more. Key takeaways from these conversations included: “I think in general, the city has done a pretty good job of protecting and advancing natural areas and habitat values. It needs more protection and involvement, and we also have to balance the ability of people to access these areas to use them in the way that they’re intended.” “We need to get back to a fuller integrity of the parks, we need the personnel to do it, but we need the knowledge layers of how best to do it, that know the best management practices to do it. I think you will see a unanimity in the city of that value.” “The parks don’t regenerate on their own. And that takes a lot of human power to replant, to keep them hydrated, to adjust to new conditions and threats. The weather is unpredictable… I don’t think species are thriving, I think they’re coping. We’re in exploratory territory, and we need flexibility and options to get these places to be healthy.” 7 A greater emphasis on long-term accessibility for residents of various abilities; The inclusion of wildfire prevention and containment practices; An increased reach of the parks and natural spaces covered in the referendum, reflective of the community’s strong support for protection and preservation. KEY COMMUNITY LISTENING SESSION RESULTS - Continued “I appreciate that people are fired up about protecting natural spaces as much as I am, and I appreciate the [citizen] initiative for that reason. I just think that it can be improved.” “It’s curious as to why we have a [city] referendum against something the citizens qualified after eighteen months of outreach efforts by hundreds of volunteer neighbors around all Lake Oswego to get this initiative on the ballot.” “We have parks full of tinder. We have a real fire risk, not a pretend fire risk and it’s a serious matter. To mitigate that, we need to have the ability for ATV’s or some other kind of equipment to get in there and make sure that, if we had a fire, that it could be attended to. That may also require some building of certain facilities. So, to ban any kind of construction above ground may be an overreach.” “There are always going to be new demands that arise as the world changes. I think as the leadership approaches how we evolve as a city, there need to be certain givens– just things that are non-negotiable, and we need to decide what those are. For me, one of those is maintaining natural open spaces, and I think the citizen initiative is asking for that vote.” “I don’t understand why, if we do have some trees die off, why we can’t– if a tree is gone– replace it with some other tree. Having a canopy above it helps it survive its infancy. That’s why after a fire you see deciduous forest take over and then the way we get to a climax forest is the deciduous forest allows the climax forest to grow, and eventually the confers take over. It seems like we could let nature take its course more, and supplement where needed.” RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the quantitative data and the input we received from the community, Praxis recommends the Lake Oswego City Council refer their proposed measure with a few small adjustments to best meet the interests of the community, namely: 8 City of Lake Oswego Charter Amendment Survey Methodology: •A multi-modal survey of n=405 likely November 2021 voters in the City of Lake Oswego was conducted via live phone n=350 and text to web n=55. Telephone interviews were conducted via both landline and cell phone. Cell phone interviews represent 51% of the telephone portion of the sample. •The sample was randomly selected from TargetSmart’s enhanced voter file and quotas and weights were set based on age, gender, party registration, and precinct to reflect a likely November 2021 municipal electorate. •Interviews were conducted July 7-11, 2021. •The overall credibility interval (the theoretical margin of error for a blended-methodology poll that relies partially on telephone-based probability sampling, and partially on non- probability based text to web sampling) is +/-4.9%. The credibility interval for subgroups varies and is larger. •Regions are defined by precinct: Downtown: Precincts 151 / 156 Northwest: Precincts 155 / 159 / 3806 South: Precincts 153 / 154 / 157 / 160 2 The Charter Amendments Charter amendment language tested: This November, there may be two amendments on the ballot in the City of Lake Oswego that revise the city’s charter regarding parks and natural areas. I’m going to read both to you. CITIZEN’S PETITION: One charter amendment reads as follows: “Restricts improvements on certain Lake Oswego park properties. Should the Lake Oswego City Charter be amended to restrict improvements on certain city park properties?” Having heard this, would you vote “yes” to approve or “no” to reject this Charter Amendment? CITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL: One charter amendment reads as follows: “Amends Charter; protects natural areas; allows access to nature. Shall the City of Lake Oswego amend its Charter to protect natural areas, habitat, water quality, and access to nature?” Having heard this, would you vote “yes” to approve or “no” to reject this Charter Amendment? 4 While both amendments garner a majority, the City Council proposal begins 13-points higher than the Citizen’s Petition 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 5 Undecided 69% Strongly 35% Not Strongly 34% NoYes Strongly 6% Not Strongly 14% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 20% 11% 56% 27% 17% UndecidedNoYes Strongly 21% Not Strongly 35% Strongly 7% Not Strongly 20% CITY COUNCIL CITIZENS PETITION Intensity of feeling is also much higher for the Council proposal. Majorities back both proposals regardless of gender, age, or educational attainment City Council Proposal Citizen’s Petition Yes No Margin Yes No Margin Men 69%21%+48 51%31%+20 Women 70%21%+49 62%24%+38 Under age 50 76%15%+61 65%23%+42 Over age 50 67%21%+46 53%28%+25 Over age 70 63%23%+40 60%23%+37 No college education 61%24%+37 58%26%+32 College+75%17%+58 55%28%+27 TOTAL 69%20%+49 56%27%+29 6 Having heard this, would you vote “yes” to approve or “no” to reject this Charter Amendment? Levels of support for the City Councill proposal outpace those for the Citizen’s Petition among all major demographic subgroups. Partisanship scales as we’d expect for the City Council Proposal, though both amendments begin with double-digit margins of support regardless of ideological bent City Council Proposal Citizen’s Petition Yes No Margin Yes No Margin Democrats (reg.)72%18%+54 60%23%+37 NAV (reg.)65%19%+46 45%33%+12 Republicans (reg.)66%25%+41 56%30%+26 Democrats (ID)73%18%+55 61%24%+37 Independents (ID)59%16%+43 42%30%+12 Republicans (ID)67%25%+42 55%30%+25 High propensity voters 71%19%+52 57%27%+30 Medium propensity voters 54%29%+25 53%29%+24 TOTAL 69%20%+49 56%27%+29 7 Having heard this, would you vote “yes” to approve or “no” to reject this Charter Amendment? Significantly higher support citywide for the City Council proposal City Council Proposal Citizen’s Petition Yes No Margin Yes No Margin Kids @ home 73%18%+55 64%21%+43 No kids @ home 68%21%+47 53%29%+24 Downtown 71%19%+52 49%31%+18 Northwest 65%20%+45 56%25%+31 South 70%21%+49 63%25%+38 Homeowners 72%19%+53 54%29%+25 Renters 59%22%+37 63%19%+44 TOTAL 69%20%+49 56%27%+29 8 Having heard this, would you vote “yes” to approve or “no” to reject this Charter Amendment? In a dynamic where both measures are on the ballot at the same time, the City Council proposal outpaces the Citizen’s Petition by eight-points 37% 18%12% 8% 7% 2% 5% 2% 9% Yes on both Yes on the city council proposal; no on the citizen petition No on the city council proposal; yes on the citizen petition No on both Yes on city; undecided on citizen No on city; undecided on citizen Undecided on city; yes on citizen Undecided on city; no on citizen DK/NA 9 As we discussed earlier, it may be the case that both charter amendments dealing with the City of Lake Oswego’s parks may be on the ballot at the same time. Let tell you a little more about them: [CITY AMENDMENT]One is proposed by the City Council and Mayor of Lake Oswego.It designates natural areas for protection across the City,enhances water quality and wildlife habitat,while preserving the city’s ability to improve critical infrastructure like the city water supply,ensure equitable access to our natural spaces for all residents, and allow for the continued maintenance of our wildlands to prevent forest fires and the spread of invasive species TOTAL “YES”VOTE:62% [CITIZEN AMENDMENT]One is a citizen's petition proposed by a coalition of local Lake Oswego residents working together to protect our natural parks from future development that is inconsistent with maintaining these lands as natural habitats. It designates natural areas for protection across the City,enhances water quality and wildlife habitat and can be expanded to include more parks in the future—while guaranteeing that our natural areas can never be developed upon. TOTAL “YES”VOTE:54% The most popular aspects of either amendment focus on protecting wildlife and water quality 10 Favor, strongly Favor, not strongly Net “favor” Protects wildlife habitat 60%27%87% Protects water quality 58%30%88% Ensures equitable access to parks and natural spaces for all residents 47%34%81% Connects neighborhoods with designated pathways 44%35%79% Allows for effective planning for neighborhood livability 43%38%82% Protects the ability to restore and preserve natural spaces in a changing climate 43%38%81% I’m going to read you some possible aspects of both the City Council’s and the Citizen Petition’s charter amendments. After each, please tell me whether you favor or oppose that particular aspect. If you aren’t sure, you can tell me that, too and we will move on. Second tier aspects are also extremely popular 11 Favor, strongly Favor, not strongly Net “favor” Would require a vote of the people in order to conduct any needed update or maintenance to existing taxpayer funded facilities located within newly designated Nature Preserve land 43%30%73% Prevents the use of City owned nature preserve land for the construction of athletic facilities 41%36%77% Ensures access to natural areas for public safety and other essential city services 40%40%80% Preserves the ability to construct and maintain critical emergency and 9-1- 1 response communications equipment on city owned land 40%40%80% Preserves adaptability to changing needs of the community and our environment 36%42%78% Locks up city owned land 33%35%68% I’m going to read you some possible aspects of both the City Council’s and the Citizen Petition’s charter amendments. After each, please tell me whether you favor or oppose that particular aspect. If you aren’t sure, you can tell me that, too and we will move on. Side-By-Side Comparison –City Measure compared to Love LO Parks Measure Provision Initial City Measure Love LO Parks Measure Parks Covered Springbrook Park; Cooks Butte Park; Woodmont Nature Park; Hallinan Woods; Stevens Meadow; Bryant Woods; Canal Acres; Cornell Natural Area; Glenmorrie Greenway; Kerr Open Space; Lamont Springs; River Run I and II; Southshore; Kelly Creek; Pennington Park; Sunny Slope; and the natural areas of West Waluga, East Waluga, George Rogers, Iron Mountain and Freepons Parks. Requires the Council to adopt a map identifying protected areas 60 days after passage Springbrook Park; Cooks Butte Park; Iron Mountain Park; Woodmont Nature Park; Hallinan Woods; Stevens Meadow; Bryant Woods; Canal Acres; Cornell Natural Area, Glenmorrie Greenway, Kerr Open Space, Lamont Springs, River Run I and II, Southshore, and the natural areas of West Waluga Park Defines the acreage of each park and natural space Definitions Defines Natural Area as a property that is managed to retain or improve its natural condition, environmental values and ecological functions. Natural Areas also may provide a scenic, aesthetic appearance and provide passive recreational uses and educational opportunities. Defines Nature Preserve as parks or open spaces that are managed or maintained to retain their natural condition and prevent habitat degradation Prohibits • New athletic facilities • Commercial logging • New public streets and roads • New telecommunication facilities • Athletic facilities • Telecommunications facilities • Parking lots • Roads or trails for motorized vehicles • Commercial logging • Hard surface trails • Additional emergency response routes to fight wildfires Allows • Maintenance, stewardship and education activities that promote ecological restoration and enhancement, eliminate invasive species, restore native and drought resistant species, and mitigate fire hazards. • Maintenance for the purpose of ecological restoration, safe public access, healthy habitat, eliminates invasive species, restores native species, and mitigates fire hazards. ATTACHMENT 3 • Thinning and removal of hazard trees and removal of non-native nuisance and invasive plants. • Construction, maintenance, and renovation of trails for walking, hiking, wheelchairs and mobility devices, horseback riding, and non-motorized bicycle travel to allow public enjoyment of the Natural Areas • Construction of picnic, sanitary facilities, boardwalks, benches and interpretive displays • Maintenance, renovation, or replacement any existing facility or structure • Implementation of a park master plan for a Natural Area that was adopted before January 1, 2022 • Soft-surface trails for hiking, jogging, horseback and bicycle riding. • Benches and interpretive displays • Picnic and sanitary facilities • Boardwalks. • Maintenance of any existing facility, structure, parking lot, road, or trail • Implementation of any parks master plan adopted before this charter amendment is ratified. Special Allowance May allow other development such as lighting or parking lots only after the City adopts a property-specific master plan. Property-specific master plans require extensive public involvement Any property-specific changes in the future require voter approval. Americans with Disabilities Act States that if this provision is in conflict with the ADA, the City should follow the ADA Silent on ADA Max Height in Residential areas Keeps existing limits Keeps existing limits Lakewood Bay Oswego Lake Tualatin River WillametteRiverUV99W UV99W UV43 UV99E UV99W §¨¦5 §¨¦5 SW Childs RdSW Childs RdSSWW7722nnddAAvveeSW Bonita RdSW Bonita Rd SSWW LL oo ww ee rr BB oo oo nn ee ss FF eerrrryyRRddIIrroonnMM oo uu nn tt aaiinn BBllvvdd LLaakkeevviieewwBB llvvddSS WW NNyy bbeerrgg SStt Pilkington RdPilkington RdBBoooonneessFFeerrrryyRRddSSttaaffffoorrddRRddUU ppppeerrDD rrSSEEMMaaiinnSStt Re e s e R dRe e s e R d WWeessttvviieewwDDrrSE Washington StSE Washington St SE Monroe StSE Monroe St BBoooonneessFFeerrrryyRRddSSWWCCaarrmmaannDDrrBonita RdBonita Rd SSWW DDaarrttmmoouutthh SS ttKnaus RdKnaus Rd TouchstoneTouchstoneCCoouunnttrryy CClluubb RRdd Cedaroak DrCedaroak Dr MM cc VV ee yy AA vveeBBrryyaannttRRddCCaarrmmaannDDrr SS OOlldd RRiivveerr RR ddTerw i l l ige r B l vdTerw i l l ige r B l vd SSoouutthh SShhoorree BBllvvddTTwwiinnFFiirr RRddSSWWBBaannggyyRRddCC hhaanndd llee rr RR dd FFeerrnnwwooooddDDrrWWaasshhiinnggttoonnCCtt GGooooddaa llll RR ddSS SSkkyyllaannddDDrr CCaarrrriiaaggee WW aayy SS WW iillddaa RRddSW Pilkington RdSW Pilkington RdSSWW4499tthhAAvveeFir Ridge RdFir Ridge Rd SSWWUUppppeerrBBoooonneessFFeerrrryyRRddBBeerrggiissRRddSuncrest DrSuncrest DrGGlleennmmoorrrriieeDDrrSSWW3355tthhAAvveeSSWWSSttaaffffoorrddRRddTTrreeee TTooppLLnnSE L a k e R d SE L a k e R d CC hh ii ll dd ss RRdd SSWW6655tthhAAvveeS Sweetbriar RdS Sweetbriar RdSE Concord Rd SE Concord Rd SS BB ee rr gg ii ss RR dd SS WWBBrriiddggeeppoorrttRRddSE Oak Grove BlvdSE Oak Grove Blvd WW ee ss tt BBaayyRR dd Jean RdJean Rd BBooccaaRRaattaannDDrrSSWWBB oooonneessFF ee rrrryy RRddWWaalluugg aaD D rr SE River RdSE River RdFFoossbbeerrggRRddHHiiddddeennSSpprriinnggssRRddHHiillllccrreess ttDDrrBBoottttiicceelllliiLLaakkeeGGrroovveeAAvvee SSEE PP aarrkk AAvvee KKrruussee WWaayy OO vv ee rrlloo oo kk DDrr Greentree RdGreentree Rd MMaarryyllhhuurrssttDDrrSSWW JJoohhnnssoonn RRddWestlakeDrWestlakeDrRRooyycceeWW aayy SS WW TTeerrwwiilllliiggeerr BBllvvdd TTiimmbbeerrlliinnee DDrrS W L a k e F o r e s t B l v d S W L a k e F o r e s t B l v d SSEE CCoouurrtt nneeyy AAvvee SS RRoosseemmoonntt RR dd Melrose StMelrose St QQuuaarrrryy RRddGGrreeeenn BBlluuffffDDrrA Ave A Ave KKeellookkRRddCCoorrnneellllSSttKK eerrrr PPkkwwyy OOlldd RRiivveerr RRddWW eemmbb ll ee yy PPaarrkkRRddOOll dd RRii vveerrDDrrSS RRii vv e e r r ssiiddeeDDrrSS TT eerr w w iill ll ii ggeerr BBll vvddMM ee aa ddoowwss RRdd SW L e s s e r R d SW L e s s e r R d SSWW CChhiillddssRR dd SW Stephenson StSW Stephenson St StevensMeadows Waluga Park-East Iron MountainPark Canal Acres GlenmorrieGreenway Freepons Park Lamont SpringsNatural Area BryantWoodsNature Park South ShoreNatural Area CooksButte Park Waluga Park-West SpringbrookPark River RunPark 1 River RunPark 2 HallinanWoods CornellNaturalArea KerrOpenSpace PenningtonPark Woodmont Park Kelly Creek GeorgeRogers Park SunnySlope City Parks Amendment Map 0 0.5 1Mile ³ 7/26/2021P:\GIS Projects\Parks and Recreation\Chapter X\Chapter X Version 3.mxd ATTACHMENT 4 UV99W §¨¦5 §¨¦5 SS WW BB aa rrbb uu rrBB llvvddSSWW7722nnddAAvveeSW Bonita RdSW Bonita Rd Bonita RdBonita Rd CC oo uu nn ttrryy CClluubb RRdd Knaus RdKnaus Rd TouchstoneTouchstoneCCaarrmmaannDDrrTTwwiinn FF ii rr RR ddSSWWCCaappiittooll HHwwyy SSWWBBaannggyyRRddGGooooddaallll RR ddWWaa ll uu ggaa DDr r Fir Ridge RdFir Ridge RdBBoooonneessFFeerrrryy RRddSSWW DDaarrttmmoouutthh SSttSSWW4499tthhAAvveeQQuuaarrrryy RRddFFoossbbeerrggRRddBB oo ttttiicceelllliiSSWW3355tthhAAvveeKKrruuss ee WWaayyWestlake DrWestlake DrSSWWBBoooonneessFFeerrrryyRR ddMelrose StMelrose St IIrroonnMMoouunnttaaiinnBBllvvddKKeerrrrPPkkwwyy WW eemmbb ll ee yyPPaarrkkRRddMMeeaaddoowwss RRdd SSWW SStteepphheennssoonn SStt SW L e s s e r R d SW L e s s e r R d Waluga Park- East IronMountain Park WalugaPark - West SpringbrookPark KerrOpenSpace PenningtonPark P:\GIS Projects\Parks and Recreation\Chapter X\Chapter X Version 3_NW.mxd City Parks AmendmentMap (Northwest) 0 0.25 0.5Mile ³ 7/26/2021 ATTACHMENT 4 A Lakewood Bay Oswego Lake WillametteRiverUV99E SE Oak Grove BlvdSE Oak Grove BlvdSSEEMMaaiinnSStt SE Washington StSE Washington St SE Monroe S t SE Monroe S t SSEE CCoouurrttnneeyy AAvvee SS EE PP aarrkk AA vvee CC hh aanndd llee rr RR ddKnaus RdKnaus RdCCoouunnttrryy CClluubb RR dd SSEERRiivveerrRRddBBooccaaRRaattaannDDrrSE Harrison StSE Harrison St SW Stephenson StSW Stephenson St SE L a k e R d SE L a k e R dSSWW BB oo oo nn ee ss FFeerrrryyRRddSS W W TT eerrwwii lllliiggeerrBBllvvdd TTiimmbbeerrlliinnee DD rr A Ave A Ave IIrroonn MM oouunnttaaiinnBBllvvddSSR R ii vv ee rr ss ii dd ee DDrrSSTTeerrwwiilllliigg eerr BBll vvddIronMountainPark Woodmont Park Kelly Creek P:\GIS Projects\Parks and Recreation\Chapter X\Chapter X Version 3_NE.mxd City Parks AmendmentMap (Northeast) 0 0.25 0.5Mile ³ 7/26/2021 ATTACHMENT 4 B Oswego Lake Willa me tteRiver UV43 UV99W SSttaaffffoorrddRRddMMccVVeeyyAA vveeSSoouutthh SShhoorree BB llvvdd SS SSkkyyllaannddDDrr SS WW iill ddaaRRddBBeerrggiissRRddSuncrest DrSuncrest DrGGlleennmmoorrrriieeDDrrOverlook DrOverlook Dr SSWWSSttaaffffoorrddRRddS Sweetbriar RdS Sweetbriar RdSS BB ee rr gg ii ss RR dd HHiiddddeennSSpprriinnggssRRddHHiillllccrree ss ttDDrrSE Concord Rd SE Concord Rd MMaarryyllhhuurrssttDDrrSS RRoosseemmoonntt RRdd SSEERRiivveerr RRdd GGrreeeenntt rreeee RRddGGrreeeenn BBlluuffffDDrrCCoorrnneellllSSttOOlldd RRiivveerr RRdd OOll dd RRii vveerrDDrrStevensMeadows GlenmorrieGreenway Freepons Park SouthShoreNatural Area HallinanWoods CornellNaturalArea GeorgeRogers Park P:\GIS Projects\Parks and Recreation\Chapter X\Chapter X Version 3_SE.mxd City Parks AmendmentMap (Southeast) 0 0.25 0.5Mile ³ 7/26/2021 ATTACHMENT 4 C Oswego Lake Tualatin River §¨¦5 SW Childs RdSW Childs Rd SSWWSSttaaffffoorrddRRddSSWW LL oo ww ee rr BB oo oo nn ee ss FF eerrrryyRRddLLaakkeevviieewwBB llvvddSS WW NNyy bbeerrgg SStt Pilkington RdPilkington RdBBoooonneessFFeerrrryyRRddUU ppppeerrDD rrRe e s e R dRe e s e R d WWeessttvviieewwDDrrSSWWCCaarrmmaannDDrrSSWW7722nnddAAvveeBBrryyaanntt RRdd FFeerrnnwwooooddDDrrWashington CtWashington Ct TTwwiinnFFii rr RRd d WW a a ll uuggaa DDrrSSoouutthh SShhoorreeBB llvv dd OO vveerrlloo oo kk DDrrTTrreeeeTTooppLLnnQuarry RdQuarry RdCChhii ll dd ss RRdd SS WW6655tthhAAvveeGG rr ee ee nn tt rr ee ee RRddWWeessttBBaayyRRdd Jean RdJean Rd LLaakkee GGrroovvee AAvvee RRooyycceeWW aayy S W L a k e F o r e s t B l v d S W L a k e F o r e s t B l v d KKeellookkRRddSSWW CChhiillddssRR dd StevensMeadows WalugaPark - East Canal Acres LamontSpringsNatural Area Bryant WoodsNature Park CooksButte Park Waluga Park- West River RunPark 1 River RunPark 2 Sunny Slope P:\GIS Projects\Parks and Recreation\Chapter X\Chapter X Version 3_SW.mxd City Parks AmendmentMap (Southwest) 0 0.25 0.5Mile ³ 7/26/2021 ATTACHMENT 4 D Caption: Amends Charter; protects natural areas; allows access to nature. Question: Shall the City of Lake Oswego amend its Charter to protect natural areas, habitat, water quality, and access to nature? Summary: This measure would revise Chapter X of the Lake Oswego Charter and rename it “Preservation of Natural Areas”. This section of the City’s Charter would ensure that Springbrook Park; Cooks Butte Park; Woodmont Nature Park; Hallinan Woods; Stevens Meadow; Bryant Woods; Canal Acres; Cornell Natural Area; Glenmorrie Greenway; Kerr Open Space; Lamont Springs; River Run I and II; Southshore; Kelly Creek; Pennington Park; Sunny Slope; and the natural areas of West Waluga, East Waluga, George Rogers, Iron Mountain and Freepons Parks are managed to protect water quality, wildlife habitat, wildfire prevention and containment, aesthetic values, and ecological function and to allow trails accessible to people with different physical abilities and needs. Athletic Facilities, new public roads, and telecommunications facilities are prohibited in Natural Areas. Restoration, stewardship, trails, and maintenance and renovation of existing facilities and structures are allowed. Other activities are only allowed after public involvement and adoption of a Master Plan. This section would replace the existing “Chapter X - Park Development Limitations,” which applies only to Springbrook Park. 170 words Explanatory Statement The proposed “Preservation of Natural Areas” amendment of the City’s Charter revises Chapter X of the existing Charter to “preserve, protect, restore, and maintain the scenic and aesthetic qualities, ecological functions, water quality and wildlife habitat of Natural Areas that are owned by the City of Lake Oswego while also allowing for their use and enjoyment.” Recognizing interest in increasing protections for parks and natural spaces in Lake Oswego, the City undertook a public engagement program to assess public attitudes and develop proposed changes to the City’s Charter. The City’s engagement program included an online survey promoted by the City that was completed by 355 residents; a statistically representative poll of 405 Lake Oswego voters; two public listening conversations attended by 26 local residents; and 26 individual conversations with community leaders and stakeholders from the community. People in the community voiced a commitment to ensuring these places support a broad range of uses, while also protecting their natural integrity. The City also heard feedback on a citizen initiative to amend the Charter that will be presented to voters in the November 2021 election. While some supported the measure, others raised concerns about unintended consequences that would impair other public priorities for these spaces. Several themes emerged including: ATTACHMENT 5 • The preservation and maintenance of parks and natural spaces are a key aspect of the high quality of life in Lake Oswego. • A desire to protect water quality and wildlife habitat. • The importance of ensuring parks and natural spaces are accessible for people of various abilities. • A focus on the need to prepare for climate change, particularly the need to prevent and contain wildfires, and protect wildfire response capabilities. Using this feedback, the City’s elected leaders have proposed the Charter amendment that will allow: • Maintenance, stewardship, and education activities that promote ecological restoration and enhancement, eliminate invasive species, restore native species, and mitigate fire hazards. • Maintenance and renovation of trails for walking, hiking, wheelchairs and mobility devices, horseback riding, and non-motorized bicycle travel. Trail construction can only occur after an environmental assessment and review by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Advisory Board and must be appropriate to the conditions of a natural area. • Construction, maintenance, renovation, and replacement of picnic and sanitary facilities, boardwalks, benches, and interpretive displays where appropriate. The Amendment would prohibit construction of new athletic facilities, commercial logging, construction of new public streets and roads, and construction or installation of new telecommunications facilities in designated Natural Areas. Other uses and facilities related to restoration or access to Natural Areas would only be allowed under the Amendment after City Council adoption of a property-specific master plan for the designated area. The Council must engage the public in the development of the master plan, including Neighborhood Associations and all property owners within 300 feet of the Natural Area. If both this measure and Ballot Measure 20201N- 1 are approved, only the measure with the greater number of affirmative votes will become effective. (491 words)