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)