F-017 Chapter X Analysis Memo 12-15-2023
503-675-3984 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
TO: Development Review Commission
CC: Ellen Davis, Senior Planner
FROM: Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT: LU 23-0002 – New Look Development
City Charter X (Sec. 41-46)
DATE: December 15, 2023
This memo1 expands upon the October 25, 2023 Staff Report’s findings that:
• Chapter X is not applicable “criteria and standards” for consideration of the minor
development application (Staff Report, pgs. 10-11); and,
• If Chapter X were an applicable “criteria and standards” for consideration, the proposed
development activities are not contrary to its provisions (Staff Report, pgs.11-13).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
1. Chapter X is a valid (and important) law, but it is not a land use regulation.
Chapter X applies to land owned by the City with the PNA zone; it does not apply to non-
City park/natural land providers. The 2021 Chapter X amendment did not incorporate
applicable Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) Goals or relevant
Comprehensive Plan policies or otherwise clearly indicate that the Chapter was intended to be
applied as a land use regulation upon all lands within all designated zones.
//
//
1 The memo also references and responds to the arguments presented by two commenters -- Exhibit G-572,
submitted by the “LOLoveParks Steering Committee,” and Exhibit G-587 submitted by Michael Kohlhoff – because
those commenters captured the arguments made by other commenters on the Chapter X issue. A copy of City
Charter, Chapter X is at Exhibit F-016.
Page 2 of 29
This Commission has previously concluded that the former iteration of Chapter X2 was
not a land use regulation to be applied as criteria for a minor development application under LU
20– 0027 (tennis center improvements in Springbrook Park).
Chapter X is an important restriction upon the City’s proprietary management of the
listed Nature Preserves (in the nature of CCRs); but Chapter X is not “criteria and standards” the
Commission may consider pursuant to its limited scope of review criteria under LOC
50.07.003.14.d.ii.
2. Alternatively, if the Commission chooses to address whether Chapter X prohibits the
proposed development within Waluga Park, it must interpret the law as applied to this
development.3 Accordingly, this memo sets forth my legal analysis and conclusion that the
temporary construction access, removal of trees for construction, and installation of an
underground sewer main, with post-construction wetland vegetation planting is not contrary to
Chapter X Limitations on Development Paragraphs (Section 43).
• Temporary Construction Access: It is not a “road” prohibited by Paragraph Three because it
is not a permanent, vehicular mode of transportation; rather it is limited in use and
duration. After construction, the mitigation will result in the appropriate wetland natural
area vegetation, complying with Paragraph One, and similar to temporary construction
access previously on Springbrook Park, under the same text that preceded the 2021 Chapter
X amendments.
• Removal of Trees: Tree removal is not for a prohibited purpose under Paragraphs Three and
Five. Further, by context with Paragraphs Three and Five, and legislative history (including
construction work in Springbrook Park under the same text of then Chapter X, Section 43,
Paragraph One), tree removal, with subsequent appropriate mitigation plantings, is not
contrary to Paragraph One.
• Installation of Underground Sewer Main: Installation of an underground sewer main, with
cover and planting of appropriate wetland mitigation plantings is not contrary to Paragraph
Four’s prohibition against above ground structures that “would impair or be inconsistent
with the natural conditions of a Nature Preserve.” Paragraphs Four and Two provide context
that such installation, undergrounding of a sewer main, and plantings is “consistent with the
preservation of a Nature Preserve as a natural area,” and voters would not have known that
a new interpterion of the same “impair or be inconsistent with the natural conditions” text
in Paragraph One would now prohibit undergrounding of sewer lines.
//
2 Prior to 2021, Chapter X only applied to Springbrook Park. But the relevant text regarding the restrictions
themselves was not changed in the 2021 amendments.
3 In general, Oregon courts have developed a standard methodology that involves looking at the express terms of
the law, its context, legislative history, and applying maxims of construction.
Page 3 of 29
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND: ................................................................................................................................ 4
DISCUSSION:.................................................................................................................................... 5
A. Chapter X is Not Applicable “Criteria and Standards” ........................................................ 5
1. Chapter X Only Applies to City-Owned “Nature Preserves” ........................................... 5
2. Land Use Regulatory Provisions Implement the Comprehensive Plan; Chapter X Does
Not Implement the Comprehensive Plan ............................................................................... 5
3. Charter May Not be a Permissible Means to Enact a Land Use Regulation ................... 7
4. Minor Development Criteria and Standards................................................................... 7
a. Chapter X Is Not “Requirements of the Zone” ........................................................... 8
b. Chapter X is not “any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code
provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application, as
provided for in this Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50), Stormwater
Management Code (LOC Article 38.25), streets and sidewalks chapter (LOC Chapter 42),
and the tree cutting chapter (LOC Chapter 55)” under Minor Development Criteria ..... 10
5. Commission’s Prior Interpretation That Chapter X Is Not a Land Use Regulation ....... 13
6. Sub-conclusion .............................................................................................................. 14
B. Proposed Development Does Not Violate Chapter X ....................................................... 14
1. Proposed Development Actions within Waluga Park ................................................... 15
2. Manner of interpreting Ballot Measures ...................................................................... 15
3. Limitations on Development (Section 43) .................................................................... 16
a. Purpose / Liberal Interpretation (Sections 41 and 42) ............................................. 16
b. Limitations on Development (Section 43) ................................................................ 17
i. Temporary construction access as needed for equipment to trench, install sewer
main, cover, and replant. .............................................................................................. 17
ii. Tree Removal of 12 trees (#1, 2, 5-11, 13-18). ................................................... 24
(1). Temporary Construction Access ...................................................................... 24
(2). Installation and Maintenance of Sewer Main ................................................... 26
iii. Permanent undergrounding of sewer main by trenching, installing sewer main,
covering, and replanting, from the existing sewer manhole to the west boundary of
Waluga Park at the eastern end of unopened Baleine Street ...................................... 27
4. Sub-conclusion .............................................................................................................. 29
Page 4 of 29
BACKGROUND:
Owner Hail Capital LLC petitioned for annexation of five legal lots of records4 (AN 21-0003). The
Council tentatively approved the annexation on November 21, 2021 “upon the owner recording
a Covenant to Construct and Connect to City Sewer Line (Exhibit E-003) in the official records of
Clackamas County, Oregon,” so the parcels would be served by sewer, with the developer to
construct a sanitary sewer extension through Waluga Park-West:
Sanitary sewer service can be made available from an existing sewer line that is located
in Waluga Park approximately 525 feet east of Inverurie Road. Any new homes shall be
connected to the City’s public sewer system that follows the City’s Wastewater Master
Plan.
…
The public sewer extension would be required through the [Waluga] park and along
Baleine Street and south along Kimball Street to the southern boundary of Tax Lot 2902 .
The Parks Department has been consulted about the location of the sewer line through
this park and recognizes that its location is consistent with the sewer master plan and
that it is in the public interest to construct the sewer line in this location.
[AN 21-0003: Council Report, pg. 3; Attachment C to Ord. 2874, pg s. 3-4].
Following the Owner’s recordation of the Covenant, the Council approved Ord inance 2874 on
March 17, 2022.5
In this minor development land use application for serial lot line adjustments and an
unavoidable utility (sewer) crossing of a Class II RP District wetland (within Waluga Park-West
and the easterly unopened extension of Baleine St reet), Applicant New Look Development LLC
has submitted a sewer extension plan from the existing sewe r manhole in Waluga Park-West,
to its westerly edge, and then continuing along the unopened easterly extension of Baleine
Street (Exhibit E-006).
Written comment and oral testimony were received at the initial Development Review
Commission (Commission) public hearing on November 20, 2023, that the City Charter, Chapter
X (Sections 41-46) [Exhibit F-0166] should be considered as “applicable standards and criteria”
4 Taxlots 2902, 3000, and 100 consist of five platted lots: Lots 1, 2, 69, and 70, Block 1, of the Lake Forest plat
(Exhibit E-011) and Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 2007-142 (Exhibit E-008).
5 Commenters (see Exhibits G-572 pg. 7 and G-587, pg 1) argue that the annexation condition, which is based on
Comprehensive Plan policies for annexation, is invalid under Chapter X, and that the annexation was therefore
unlawful, and the resulting development on the annexed land must be rejected. A land use application review
proceeding is not the forum to invalidate an adopted 2021 annexation ordinance, as the Commis sion may only
approve, approve with condition, or deny a land use application [LOC 50.07.003.14.d.iii(1), d.i; 4.g.i].
6 Chapter X includes an additional Section 46A Maximum Height of Structures in Residential Areas. (See Exhibit F-
016). Subsection 46A is not relevant to the application because no structures above ground (from which height is
measured) are proposed and the Park is not zoned residential (it is zoned PNA – Parks and Natural Area). The
comments and testimony reference Chapter X in regards to development within Waluga Park, as a shorthand
reference to Sections 41-46 only, not Section 46A. This reference in this memo to Chapter X likewise does not
include Section 46A.
Page 5 of 29
under LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii to determine whether the minor development application should
be granted.
DISCUSSION:
A. Chapter X is Not Applicable “Criteria and Standards”
Not every law, charter, or code provision is a criterion or standard to be applied as “criteria and
standards” for a minor or major development land use application.
1. Chapter X Only Applies to City-Owned “Nature Preserves”
The purpose and scope of Chapter X is limited to City-owned, specifically designated “Nature
Preserves”:
“… purpose of this Chapter is to preserve all designated Nature Preserves that are
owned by the City of Lake Oswego, inclusive of the fifteen natural parks specified in this
Chapter, as natural areas.” Chapter X, Sec. 41.
Nature Preserve means natural area parks or open spaces owned by the City of Lake
Oswego that are managed or maintained to retain their n atural condition and prevent
habitat deterioration. Nature Preserves that are subject to the limitations of this
Chapter, which upon ratification will initially include, Bryant Woods Park, Canal Acres,
Cornell Natural Area, Cooks Butte Park, Glenmorrie Greenway, Hallinan Woods, Iron
Mountain Park, Kerr Open Space, Lamont Springs Natural Area, River Run, Southshore
Natural Area, Springbrook Park, Stevens Meadows, Waluga Park – West, and
Woodmont Natural Park. Chapter X, Sec. 42.
This limitation on the scope of owner affected by Chapter X is reinforced by the specific
Limitations on Development, Section 43. Each Limitation starts with: “The City of Lake Oswego
shall …” (Exhibit F-016).
It is acknowledged that a Charter provision has higher priority in terms of conflicting code. But
here Chapter X is not in conflict with LOC Chapter 50 as a land use regulation . If Chapter X is a
land use regulation, rather than a proprietary restriction on the City’s management of the listed
parks, and if there is a conflicting LOC Chapter 50 provision, then Chapter X would prevail over
the conflicting LOC Chapter 50 provision. As discussed below in Subsections 4-5, Chapter X is
not a general land use regulation but rather is a proprietary restriction (restriction upon owner
by non-regulatory means): if Waluga Park were owned and operated as a County or State park,
Chapter X would not apply. Accordingly, no conflict between LOC Chapter 50 criteria and
standards and any Chapter X provision has been identified that would exist upon non-City-
owned land because Chapter X applies based only on ownership.
2. Land Use Regulatory Provisions Implement the Comprehensive Plan; Chapter X
Does Not Implement the Comprehensive Plan
What is a land use regulatory provision, such that it would be applicable “criteria and
standards” to a minor development land use application under LOC Chapter 50 , specifically LOC
50.07.003.14.d.ii?
Page 6 of 29
In the statutory context of land use planning in the State of Oregon, a land use re gulation is one
that implements a city’s comprehensive plan:
(11) “Land use regulation” means any local government zoning ordinance, land division
ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or 92.046 or similar general ordinance
establishing standards for implementing a comprehensive plan. [ORS 197.012(11)]
LOC Chapter 50, the Community Development Code, is the City’s primary land use regulation
that is adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan policies :
Generally Applicable Purposes. This Code [LOC Ch. 50] has been drafted in accordance
with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lake Oswego. It is
the general purpose of this Code, therefore, to provide the principal means for the
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
…
(ii) Guide future land uses, growth and development in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan; [and]
…
(viii) Establish procedures, standards, and review of uses assuring that the design of site
improvements and building improvements are consistent with applicable standards and
minimize adverse impacts on surrounding land uses, and yet allow for and encourage
flexibility in the design and layout of site improvements and buildings, and innovation in
design and construction; …. [LOC 50.01.001.a.ii].
A commenter argues (Exhibit G-587, pg. 5) that when Chapter X was adopted, the voters were
“appl[ying] the Goal 5 natural resource provisions of the City’s adopted Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, and [the adoption] was not appealed.” Another commenter (Exhibit G -572, pgs. 4, 14-
15) states that Chapter X is a land use regulation because the Charter (and its Chapter X)
supersedes City code in terms of hierarchy; this commenter then also calls upon the Council to
amend LOC Chapter 50 to incorporate the Chapter X provisions by the creation of a new overlay
district: “Nature Preserve Overlay District.”
As noted in Subsection B.2 below, it is difficult to ascertain the intent of the voters in the first
place, given that the voters do not discuss – or in the land use context – adopt findings to state
how they interpret measure provisions and why they are voting for a measure. These two
commenters may have carefully considered whether Chapter X was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan policies that address Goal 5 – but also the Goal 10 Housing, Goal 11 Public
Facilities and Services, and Goal 14 Urbanization policies – but no evidence is presented how
other voters would have considered such policies (see Attachment 1 and appendices to Exhibit
G-572; they lack any reference to, let alone analysis of Chapter X to the Comprehensive Plan
policies). The commenters do not point to how the voters would have intended Chapter X to be
an implementation of the Comprehensive Plan policies that address LCDC Goals 5, 10, 11 and
14.
Neither the text nor the legislative history of the 2014 amendments (Explanatory Statement
and Arguments in Favor) to Chapter X state that the amendments were intended to implement
Page 7 of 29
the City’s Comprehensive Plan, nor referenced Chapter X itself as a “land use regulation” as
defined under ORS 197.012(11). See Attachment 1.
3. Charter May Not be a Permissible Means to Enact a Land Use Regulation
ORS 227.186(2), enacted as part of 1998 Ballot Measure 56, states that land use legislation is to
be adopted by ordinance:
“All legislative acts relating to comprehensive plans, land use planning or zoning
adopted by a city shall be by ordinance.”
Other provisions of ORS 227.186 require individual written notice prior to a local government
adopting an ordinance “rezoning” property: “Property is rezoned when the city … (b) Adopts or
amends an ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the
affected zone.”
Arguably state law prohibits the adoption of land use regulations that limit or prohibit land uses
allowed in a zone by a charter, rather than by ordinance, because to do so would circumvent
the individual property owner notification and public hearing procedures required of ORS
227.186(4, 5) prior to adoption.
4. Minor Development Criteria and Standards
The Commission must approve or deny based upon the applicable criteria and standards, and
adopt findings explaining its decision:
The [Commission] shall approve, approve with conditions pursuant to subsection 5 of
this section, or deny the application based upon the applicable criteria and the evidence
submitted by the applicant and other interested persons during the comment period.
Approval or denial of an application shall be accompanied by written findings that
explain the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, state the facts
relied upon in rendering the decision and explain the justification for the decision based
on the criteria, standards and facts set forth. [LOC 50.07.003.14.d.iii(1), d(i)].
The criteria and standards that a minor development application is required to meet to obtain
approval is stated in LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii:
ii. Review Criteria for Minor Developments.
A minor development shall comply with:
(1) The requirements of the zone in which it is located;
(2) The development standards applicable to minor developments;
(3) Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which
may be applicable to the specific minor development application, as provided for
in this Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50), Stormwater
Management Code (LOC Article 38.25), streets and sidewalks chapter (LOC
Chapter 42), and the tree cutting chapter (LOC Chapter 55); and
(4) Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS
or prior development permit affecting the subject property.
Page 8 of 29
The issue raised is whether Chapter X is a “requirement of the zone” or “any additional
statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific
minor development application as provided for in this Community Development Code ….”.
a. Chapter X Is Not “Requirements of the Zone”
As noted above, the minor development criteria per LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii requires a minor
development application to comply with the “requirements of the zone.” Waluga Park is in the
Park and Natural Area Zone (PNA) Zone. Chapter X is not “requirements of the [PNA] zone.”
The purpose of the PNA Zone is to:
Purpose. [LOC 50.02.003.3.a]
The purposes of the Park and Natural Area (PNA) zone are to:
i. Protect, preserve, conserve and enhance natural areas, greenways and parks;
ii. Permit a wide range of passive and active recreational uses, and accessory uses, on
property for the future use and enjoyment of the City and its residents;
iii. Implement Statewide Planning Goal 8, Recreational Needs; and
iv. Establish a master plan process for park planning and development.
The availability of designating land within the PNA zone is not limited to land owned by the City
of Lake Oswego; the PNA zone it is not an owner-specific zone:
Master Plans. [LOC 50.02.003.3.b]
A master plan, including master plan modifications, may be used by the park/natural
area provider to plan for uses on PNA-zoned land, to provide for a coordinated plan that
considers community needs, infrastructure and land use. PNA master plans are created
pursuant to LOC 50.07.004.6, Parks and Natural Areas Master Plan. A master plan is a
plan that is:
i. Established by a park/natural area provider and the hearing body authorized to adopt
the master plan, at the time of adoption or thereafter, found that it met the following
requirements described in this section: ***
ii. Established by a park/natural area provider and the City Manager found that it was a
minor modification of a master plan and complied with the requirements of
LOC 50.07.004.6.e, Master Plan Modification, or
Natural Area is defined as:
NATURAL AREA
An area of land and/or water that has a predominantly undeveloped character. Natural
areas may be pristine, or may have been affected by human activity such as vegetation
removal, agriculture, grading or drainage if such areas retain significant natural
characteristics, or have recovered to the extent that they contribute to the City’s natural
systems including hydrology, vegetation, or wildlife habitat. The purpose of natural
areas is to provide a scenic, aesthetic appearance and/or protecting natural processes,
Page 9 of 29
providing passive recreational uses, and/or maintaining natural vegetation. Natural
areas shall be either dedicated to the public or by other means committed to use for the
general public, or may also be permanently reserved by common ownership among the
owners of a development. Except as otherwise set out in LOC § 50.06.010.7, Park and
Open Space Standards for Maintenance, natural areas shall remain in natural conditions
existing at the time of their designation. (Area designated as "Open Space" prior to April
19, 2012, is a "natural area" under this definition.) [LOC 50.01.003.2].
Parks is defined as:
PARKS
Public or private land providing for one or more of the following:
a. The active recreational needs of the community;
b. The passive recreation needs of the community; or
c. Scenic and aesthetic appearance and/or protection of natural processes on
land that is to remain in natural or landscaped condition;
and is either dedicated to the public or by other means committed to use for the general
public, or permanently reserved by common ownership among the owners of a
development. [LOC 50.10.003.2].
PNA zoned land could be parks or natural areas owned and operated by other public entities,
such as the County (a County Park), the State (a State Park), or, theoretically special parks
districts, e.g., the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District.7 The PNA zone establishes zone
criteria and standards that are generally applicable to any property owner that is a
“park/natural area provider” within the zone, and PNA zoning could be extended to lands
owned by non-City park/natural area providers.
Chapter X makes no mention of the PNA zone and it does not classify the lands applicable as
those within the PNA Zone (or any other zone, for that matter). Rather, Chapter X lists specific
“Nature Preserves” by ownership by the City; the PNA zone is applicable to “Natural Areas.”
Nature Preserve means natural area parks or open spaces owned by the City of Lake
Oswego that are managed or maintained to retain their natural condition and prevent
habitat deterioration. Nature Preserves that are subject to the limitations of this
Chapter, which upon ratification will initially include, … Waluga Park – West. [Chapter X,
Sec. 42].
Although some PNA “natural areas” are Chapter X “Nature Preserves,” not all “Nature
Preserves” are “natural areas.”
7 The Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District is an example of a special district that provides park services within
some cities. A special district park district does not operate within Lake Oswego because the City provides its own
parks systems, but that is not a zoning question. The PNA zone could apply to a special park dist rict if one existed
within the City boundaries.
Page 10 of 29
b. Chapter X is not “any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego
Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor
development application, as provided for in this Community
Development Code (LOC Chapter 50), Stormwater Management Code
(LOC Article 38.25), streets and sidewalks chapter (LOC Chapter 42), and
the tree cutting chapter (LOC Chapter 55)” under Minor Development
Criteria
The criteria encompasses “additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions.8”
That does not mean, however, that every statute or regulatory provision applicable to
development on a site is a minor development land use criterion under LOC Chapter 50. For
example, DEQ Super Fund Regulations, EPA environmental regulations would not be land use
regulations – because they do not implement the LCDC Goals and the City’s Comprehensive
Plan – but are still required to be followed by the owner. But applicable self-executing
provisions of Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660 (LCDC rules) and Metro Code
requirements would be included as applicable land use regulat ions under this criterion.
In contrast to land use restrictions on development, there are restrictions on use of land that
arise from ownership, which are proprietary restrictions. These restrictions arise not from
regulations adopted by governmental entities, but rather are imposed on property by owners,
typically at the time of transfers. The Commission is familiar with land division “Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions” (CCRs), which are imposed by the developer of lots in a subdivision
or partition that regulate the future use of the property by the new owners. These CCRs may be
imposed by the developer for the common good of all owners within the subdivision or
partition, to assure a cohesive look or conduct within the subdivision or partition, e.g., limiting
or prohibiting on-street parking or parking in the front yard.
CCRs may also be imposed for the benefit of the grantor, where the grantor has a desire to
assure that the property is not used for a purpose that the grantor would not approve. An
example is where a developer decides to “donate” land to the City as a park, next to the
owner’s development. In that case, the developer wants to ensure that the City uses the land
only for park purposes because that is an amenity for the developer’s buyers, rather than
having the City sell the land itself for residential purposes, which would not benefit the
developer’s subdivision. There may be other reasons that a donor of land to the City may
restrict its use, such as their desire that their gift to the City be used for a community purpose.
When government acts upon land, it can do so in either a regulatory manner or, through
ownership, in a proprietary manner. Regulations are imposed by general ordinance and apply
upon a class of property or persons. Proprietary restrictions by government would be where
the City acts in the same manner as a private property owner with regards to its property, such
8 The subsection lists specific chapters and articles of the Lake Oswego Code. The listed code sections are not
interpreted as the exclusive listing of applicable land use regulations. The listing of other c ode sections obviously
does not confine the applicable statutory land use criteria to City code. That is a non sequitur. Similarly,
“regulatory” land use requirements are not limited to the listed code sections, as there are other sources of land
use regulations than City code. There may be even more code sections than the listed City code provisions, e.g.,
LOC 45.12.530 Building Moving Permit.
Page 11 of 29
as imposing a limitation by covenant or easement on land that it conveys out for residential
purposes, but retains an easement for public passage. The imposed requirement for the owner
to allow public passage by the terms of the covenant or easement is not by regulation, but is by
proprietary restriction, as a property ownership right.
A Charter may contain provisions that are land use regulatory, such as when the Charter
provision has wide applicability to all properties within a described area. An example of a
Charter provision that has both a proprietary restriction upon City-owned lands but also has a
broad, land use regulatory effect is Charter Section 46A:
The City of Lake Oswego shall neither construct nor allow the construction of any
structure which is more than 50 feet in height within a residential zone, except for the
construction of a single symbolic appurtenance of a structure to 75 foot height.
This 1987 prohibition applies to the City itself: it may not construct a structure in a residential
zone greater than 75 feet high. But it also has a land use regulatory effect because the City may
not “allow” any property within a residential zone to be more than 50 f eet in height, regardless
of ownership.
Conversely, Chapter X does not apply generally to all property owners within a zone or even
with a defined area. It applies to “The City of Lake Oswego” directly to specific properties that it
alone owns. Chapter X is not a broad land use regulation, but rather is in the nature of a
covenant or limitation of development on specific parcels, regardless of zoning, on lands owned
by the City of Lake Oswego.
• Section 41: The purpose of Chapter X is stated to be for the purpose of “preserv[ing] all
designated Nature Preserves [“Nature Preserve means natural area parks or open
spaces owned by the City of Lake Oswego” (Chapter X, Sec. 42)] that are owned by the
City of Lake Oswego.” The purpose of Chapter X being limited to City-owned lands only
is thus stated twice in Section 41.
In instances within the Chapter X text that appear, at first b lush, to apply to persons beyond the
City itself as owner of a Nature Preserve, that application is only derivative of the City’s
ownership; the City remains the owner of the Nature Preserve during the period “any person”
would act within a City-owned Nature Preserve.
• City of Lake Oswego shall insure that all development within a Nature Preserve is
consistent with the preservation of a Nature Preserve…. [Sec. 42, Paragraph One].
• City of Lake Oswego shall not construct or develop (or allow any person to construct or
develop) any Athletic Facility, any Telecommunications Facility, or any parking lot, road,
or trail for motorized vehicles within a Nature Preserve. [Sec. 42, Paragraph Three].
• City of Lake Oswego shall not construct or develop (or allow any person to construct or
develop) any facility or any structure above ground that would impair or be inconsistent
with the natural conditions of a Nature Preserve. [Sec. 42, Paragraph Four].
• City of Lake Oswego shall not cut (or allow any person to cut) any tree in a Nature
Preserve for the purpose of commercial logging. [Sec. 42, Paragraph Five].
Page 12 of 29
• The City of Lake Oswego shall be allowed to maintain (or allow any person to maintain)
a Nature Preserve for the purposes of ecological restoration that provides a safe and
healthy natural area …. [Sec. 42, Paragraph Six].
• The City of Lake Oswego shall be allowed to maintain (or allow any person to maintain)
any existing facility or existing structure, or any existing parking lot, road, or trail for
motorized vehicles in a Nature Preserve constructed before …. [Sec. 42, Paragraph
Seven].
Also, the context of the permissive development is written in regards to the City specifically,
not to all types of owners/providers of Nature Preserves, because there can only be the City as
owner of a Nature Preserve.
• To facilitate public access and use, the City of Lake Oswego may build trails for hiking,
jogging, horse-back and bicycle riding, may provide benches and interpretive displays,
and may provide picnic and sanitary facilities within a Nature Preserve. [Sec. 42,
Paragraph Two].
• The City of Lake Oswego shall be allowed to maintain (or allow any person to maintain)
a Nature Preserve for the purposes of ecological restoration that provides a safe and
healthy natural area that is accessible…” [A Nature Preserve is only property owned by
the City, so “allow any person to maintain” refers to persons that are contracted or
licensed by the City to under the action for the benefit of the City.] [Sec. 42, Paragraph
Seven].
A commenter (Exhibit G-587, pgs. 1, 2) states that the annexation condition for a covenant to
connect to sewer extended through Waluga Park-West is invalid because it is contrary to
Chapter X and asks the Commission to exercise judicial power to interpret Chap ter X. The
commenter also notes that the Charter amendment was where “the citizen voters have
exercised their ownership rights to approve … the manner in which the … Parks … are to be
maintained and managed by the city governing body.” The merits are addressed below, but
commenter’s initial argument regarding determination of the validity of the annexation
condition occurring regardless of a minor development application supports the position that
Chapter X is not a land use regulation or minor development criteria and standards because, as
the commenter would argue, the time for challenge of the applicability of Chapter X could have
been brought at the annexation stage, before any minor development review.9 The commenter
also states (pg. 5) that the Chapter X provisions “could also be viewed as a restrictive covenant
by the voters as how ownership of the Natural Preserves … must be maintained and managed
to retain and preserve the natural areas.” Staff concurs.
However, that commenter continues (Exhibit G-587, pg. 5), urging the Commission to now rule
on the validity of Chapter X because it arguably constrains the owner’s authority to grant
permission to the applicant to perform work within the park. That is asking the Commission to
decide whether the owner’s grant to the licensee is permissible, not whether the land use
9 The Commenter (Exhibit G 587, pg. 4) also states that the Charter limitation of Chapter X would apply derivative ly
to private developers. Staff concurs that in granting a license for a person to perform work in the park, the
proprietary restrictions would constrain what the City may license to occur on the park, as a limitation on the City’s
management of the Park, not as a stand-alone regulatory provision.
Page 13 of 29
regulations would permit the development. The Commission has no authority to rule on the
validity of an annexation ordinance [LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii].
Finally, in reviewing the legislative history (Explanatory Statement and Arguments in Favor), the
restriction on development is to acts of the City itself, not in a regulatory manner but as owner
of the specific properties. See Attachment 1.
5. Commission’s Prior Interpretation That Chapter X Is Not a Land Use Regulation
The applicability of Chapter X to a land use application was raised in LU 20-0027, an application
by the City, through a minor development application, for a development permit for minor park
improvements to the existing indoor tennis center at Springbrook Park. At that time, Chapter X
only applied to Springbrook Park except that the “‘Springbrook Park’ does not include the City
of Lake Oswego existing indoor tennis facility and adjoining parking lot.”
CHAPTER X. PARK DEVELOPMENT LIMITATION
Section 41. Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to preserve Springbrook Park (and any other parks which
may be designated as subject to this Chapter) as natural areas for the enjoyment of all
residents of and visitors to Lake
Oswego. This Chapter shall be interpreted liberal to achieve this purpose.
Section 42. Definitions.
As used in this Chapter:
Athletic Facility means any area, field, or building which is graded, leveled, constructed,
or equipped for use in sports or athletics. Fields for baseball, soccer, or football and
courts of tennis are examples of Athletic Facilities.
Springbrook Park means the park land owned by the City of Lake Oswego which is
commonly referred to as "Springbrook Park" (52 acres, more or less, to the South of
Country Club Road, to the West and North of Wembley Park Road, and to the East of
Boones Ferry Road). The term "Springbrook Park" does not include the City of Lake
Oswego existing indoor tennis facility and adjoining parking lot.
Section 43. Limitations on Development.
The City of Lake Oswego shall insure that all development within Springbrook Park is
consistent with the preservation of Springbrook Park as a natural area available for
public enjoyment.
To facilitate public access and use, the City of Lake Oswego may build trails for hiking,
jogging, horseback and bicycle riding, and may provide picnic and sanitary facilities
within Springbrook Park.
The City of Lake Oswego shall not construct or develop (or allow any person to construct
or develop) any Athletic Facility or any parking lot, road, or trail for motorized vehicles
within Springbrook Park. The City of Lake Oswego shall not cut (or allow any person to
cut) any tree in Springbrook Park for the purpose of facilitating the construction or
Page 14 of 29
development of any Athletic Facility or any parking lot, road, or trail for motorized
vehicles.
The argument in LU 20-0027 was that a footprint expansion between the parking lot and the
building was not excluded from Chapter X. Staff found that Section 43 of Chapter X was not
land use regulation criteria and standards to be applied as review criteria for a minor
development permit (Exhibit F-012, pg. 16-19 - Staff Memo, dated February 17, 2021), but
rather was a proprietary restriction on the ability of the City upon its activities as owner of
Springbrook Park.
The Development Review Commission adopted these Staff findings in the Commission’s March
15, 2021 Findings, Conclusion and Order, pg. 3, lines 11-16, by incorporation. Those Staff
findings in Exhibit F-012, pgs. 16-19 are incorporated herein.10
6. Sub-conclusion
Not every law, charter or code provision is a “criteria and standard” to be applied as “criteria
and standards” for a minor development land use application. The Commission is to apply the
criteria and standards listed in LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii. That criteria includes “requirements of the
zone” and “regulatory ...which may be applicable to the specific minor development
application….” The Chapter X Limitations on Development (Section 43), based on the tex t,
context in relation to the statutory scheme for land use regulations and the Comprehensive
Plan, and legislative history (Measure’s explanatory statement and arguments in favor), are an
ownership restriction, in the nature of a covenant (CCR) that is a limitation placed on a specific
owner – the City of Lake Oswego – to develop its property and thus does not constitute a
“requirements of the zone” or a “regulatory” minor development criteria under LOC
50.07.003.14.d.ii, which is the limit of the Commission’s basis for approval, approval with
condition, or denial.
B. Proposed Development Does Not Violate Chapter X
If the Commission finds that Chapter X is not an applicable criteria and standard for a minor
development application under LOC 50.0-7.003.14.d.ii, then the Commission need not
determine whether the proposed development – temporary construction access and
undergrounding of sewer line – complies with Chapter X. However, the Commission could also
10 A comment (Exhibit G-587, pg. 4) noted that a compromise was entered into and thus there was no appeal to
the Council. Nevertheless, both the Staff’s and Commission’s findings are precedent to the Commission of its prior
decision. Another comment (Exhibit G-572, pg. 8) argues that the current Chapter X’s amendments were adopted
November 2, 2021, and therefore the Commission’s finding in March 15, 2021 that the then version of Chapter X
being a land use regulation was about a different version of Chapter X and therefore of no precedential value in
determining whether Chapter X is or is not a land use regulation. The original Chapter X only applied to
Springbrook Park but the current Chapter X amendments used the sa me text scheme when setting forth additional
restrictions and applying them to more park / nature preserves. Thus, the finding that the restrictions were
proprietary rather than a general land use regulation to be applied to a minor development review, wou ld carry
forward to the current Chapter X text. In fact, given that the Commission made that ruling prior to the adoption of
the 2021 Chapter X amendment, that may be an indication that the measure’s petitioners, and perhaps that
voters, would have written and read the Chapter X amendment’s scope with that in mind.
Page 15 of 29
include alternative findings, to the effect that if Chapter X were determined to be applicable
criteria by the Council (on appeal), that the proposed development complies with Chapter X.
1. Proposed Development Actions within Waluga Park
The development actions proposed within Waluga Park-West at issue are:
1. Temporary construction access as needed for equipment to trench, install sewer main,
cover, and replant.
2. Tree Removal of 12 trees (#1, 2, 5-11, 13-18).
3. Permanent undergrounding of sewer main by trenching, installing sewer main, covering,
and replanting, from the existing sewer manhole to the west boundary of Waluga Park-
West at the eastern end of unopened Baleine Street.
2. Manner of interpreting Ballot Measures
Interpreting ballot measures for Charter amendments uses the same method as interpreting
statutes and code provisions: text, context, legislative history, and rules of construction.
However, there are no council minutes or staff reports to examine for measures as evidence of
what the legislative body – 8,267 voters11 – intended. With measures, one must look to what
was widely available to the voters, e.g., voter’s pamphlet containing the measure text itself,
explanatory statements, arguments in favor, and to other information widely available to the
voters, e.g., newspaper stories, magazine articles, and other reports from which it is likely that
the voters would have derived information about the initiative in an effort to ascertain what
the voters thought they were adopting. For a broad discussion of the legal methodology to be
used for interpreting ballot measures, reference is made to the Oregon State Bar’s handbook
on Interpreting Oregon Law:
Once a measure is held legally sufficient, questions may still remain about the exact
meaning of the new constitutional provision. Such suits are the subj ect of this section.
Interpretation of initiated or referred constitutional provisions or amendments consists
of a three-step analysis. The first two steps are outlined in Ecumenical Ministries v.
Oregon State Lottery Comm’n, 318 Or 551, 559–560, 871 P2d 106 (1994). The ultimate
purpose of the test is to discern the intent of the voters. Roseburg Sch. Dist. v. Roseburg,
316 Or 374, 378, 851 P2d 595 (1993). The first step is to determine voter intent through
examination of the text and context of the provision itself. Ecumenical Ministries, 318 Or
at 559. The second step, necessary only if voter intent cannot be resolved based on text
and context, entails examination of the history of the provision in question. Ecumenical
Ministries, 318 Or at 559. A third step, not enunciated in Ecumenical Ministries, resorts
to general canons of interpretation and construction. See State v. Lanig, 154 Or App
665, 673–674, 963 P2d 58 (1998) (en banc). [OSB, Interpreting Oregon Law, Sec. 8.24].
The interpretation of laws enacted by voters as initiative or referendum measures is
guided by the same philosophy as that of statutory interpretation. Oregon’s touchstone
case on statutory interpretation emphasizes the primary importance of “discern[ing] the
intent of the legislature.” Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 317 Or
11 Voter count based on Exhibit G-572 representation.
Page 16 of 29
606, 610, 859 P2d 1143 (1993). But because the electorate itself acts as a legislative
body when passing or rejecting ballot measures, several unique tools have been
developed to aid courts in identifying “legislative intent” in the context of voter -enacted
laws.
Step One: Text and Context
The first step of the analysis outlined in Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bureau of Labor &
Indus., 317 Or 606, 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (hereinafter PGE), examines a statute’s text and
context. PGE, 317 Or at 610. In the case of initiative and referendum measures, this
encompasses the text of the measure itself, as well as related statutes that drafters and
voters were likely aware of. State v. Guzek, 322 Or 245, 265–268, 906 P2d 272 (1995). If
the text and context of a measure lead to one, and only one, plausible construction,
then the analysis usually ends. State v. Allison, 143 Or App 241, 247, 923 P2d
1224 (1996); but see State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 206 P3d 1042 (2009) (holding that ORS
174.020 permits courts to consider legislative history even when text and context is
unambiguous). … [OSB, Interpreting Oregon Law, Sec. 8.21]
Step Two: Legislative History
The second step of analysis examines legislative history. Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v.
Bureau of Labor & Indus., 317 Or 606, 611–612, 859 P2d 1143 (1993). For purposes of
initiatives and referenda, legislative history includes statements contained in the voters’
pamphlet, and other sources such as “newspaper stories, magazine articles and other
reports from which it is likely that the voters would have derived information about the
initiative.” State v. Allison, 143 Or App 241, 251, 923 P2d 1224 (1996). When taking
notice of such sources, courts act cautiously, particularly with regard to sources created
merely by paying a fee to have a point of view published in print. Allison, 143 Or App at
253. Nonetheless, when such sources “reflect[] a fairly consistent point of view on an
issue . . . [courts] have greater reason to assume that such views were relied upon by the
voting public and are obliged to give that history careful consideration.” Allison, 143 Or
App at 253. [OSB, Interpreting Oregon Law, Sec. 8.22]
Step Three: General Maxims of Construction
The third step of analysis resorts to “general maxims of statutory construction to aid in
resolving the remaining uncertainty.” Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bureau of Labor &
Indus., 317 Or 606, 612, 859 P2d 1143 (1993). Although no cases concerning statutory
ballot measures have reached the third step, a few cases have employed a similar
analysis in construing constitutional amendments. See [OSB, Interpreting Oregon Law,
Sec. 8.23].
3. Limitations on Development (Section 43)
The interpretation begins with the text and context . (“Context” means looking at related
sections to see if they aid in ascertaining what was intended by the specific text.)
a. Purpose / Liberal Interpretation (Sections 41 and 42)
Section 41 states the general purpose – preserve as natural areas:
Page 17 of 29
“The purpose of this Chapter is to preserve all designated Nature Preserves that are
owned by the City of Lake Oswego, inclusive of the fifteen natural parks specified in this
Chapter, as natural areas for the enjoyment of all residents of and visitors to Lake
Oswego.”
and states that the Limitations shall be “liberally interpreted”:
“This Chapter12 shall be interpreted liberally to achieve this purpose.”
The definition of “Nature Preserve” in Section 42 provides additional context for the purpose of
interpreting the Limitations on Development in Chapter X:
“Nature Preserve means natural area parks or open spaces owned by the City of Lake
Oswego that are managed or maintained to retain their natural condition and prevent
habitat deterioration. ….”
While the provisions are to be liberally interpreted to achieve the purpose, the overall nature of
Chapter X is a limitation on development, such that if Chapter X does not limit the
development, authorizing provisions for development need not be found in Chapter X.
b. Limitations on Development (Section 43)
Section 43 contains eight unnumbered Paragraphs (Exhibit F-016). Paragraph One uses broad
language and thus is ambiguous as to whether it is a prohibiting paragraph itself or is more of a
specific purpose paragraph to provide context for the express prohibition paragraphs. The
other seven paragraphs either expressly authorize or prohibit specific development .
The question presented is whether any Limitations on Development, liberally interpreted to
achieve the purpose, applying text, context, legislative history and maxims of construction to
interpret the Limitations, prohibit three specific acts of development within Waluga Park.
i. Temporary construction access as needed for equipment to trench, install
sewer main, cover, and replant.
The express prohibitory text cited in the comments and testimony to a temporary construction
access as needed for equipment in the undergrounding of a sewer main is the “road
prohibition” in Paragraph Three:
“The City of Lake Oswego shall not construct or develop (or allow any person to
construct or develop) …road, or trail for motorized vehicles within a Nature Preserve.
….”
Is temporary construction access for equipment the “construct[ion] or develop[ment] of a
“road … for motorized vehicles.”?
12 Although the term “Chapter” is used, Section 46A is not related to the stated Purpose, and thus there is a
question whether the “liberal construction” applies to Section 46A. That question need not be addressed in this
case.
Page 18 of 29
Step One: Text and Context: “Road” is not defined. The maxim that words of common usage
typically should be given their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning, are applied at this Step One
of the analysis. Applying the plain and ordinary meaning is particularly appropriate for a ballot
measure, as the voters would expect the words before them, unless otherwise defined in that
measure, would have the meaning that the common voter would expect . A temporary
construction vehicle-only access to a construction site does not meet the Merriam-Webster
Dictionary definition of “road”: “an open way for vehicles, persons, and animals” because the
temporary construction access is limited to construction vehicles, for a discrete limited period,
and does not provide for passage of general cars or pedestrians.13
“Road” is also a term used in Paragraph Seven14, to allow roads existing as of the election date
of the ballot measure to continue:
The City of Lake Oswego shall be allowed to maintain (or allow any person to maintain)
…any existing … road, or trail for motorized vehicles in a Nature Preserve constructed
before November 2, 2021 … as long as that … road, or trail for motorized vehicles is not
altered in any manner that would further impair or be inconsistent with the natural
conditions of a Nature Preserve.
If “road” includes temporary construction access, that would allow temporary construction
accesses existing as of November 2, 2021 to continue. Continuation of a temporary
construction access is inconsistent with the purpose of a Nature Preserve, to require
restoration of the construction access to a natural open space condition.
A commenter (Exhibit G-587) states that the temporary construction access will be a 17 foot
wide and 525 foot long “road,” with permanent loss of the natural area vegetation and trees.
The applicant has submitted a planting mitigation plan (Exhibit F-005, pg. 17) that shows post-
installation planting that will occur consistent with the RP District wetland vegetation Sensitive
Lands requirements of LOC 50.05.010.4.g.vii, viii. Restoration plantings will therefore be
consistent with the management of Waluga Park “to retain their natural condition and prevent
habitat deterioration,” per the Nature Preserve definition in Section 42.
Paragraph Two provides context for whether a temporary construction access for installation of
development would be the construction of a “road.” Paragraph Two expressly states that the
City “may build trails for hiking, jogging, horse-back and bicycle riding, may provide benches
and interpretive displays, and may provide picnic and sanitary facilities within a Nature
Preserve.” Construction of these developments would inevitably require temporary
construction access for construction equipment. The measure’s text should be interpreted so
that it does not prohibit indirectly that which it permit s. Stated differently, the voters would not
have thought that by prohibiting by the use of “road” they were also prohibiting the necessary
13 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/road#dictionary-entry-1
14When attempting to discern legislative intent, courts will assume that the legislature intended wor ds to be used
consistently. State v. Holloway, 138 Or App 260, 908 P2d 324 (1995).
Page 19 of 29
temporary construction access needed for equipment for the development they expressly
permitted.
Paragraph One is ambiguous as to whether it is a prohibitory provision itself, or whether it is a
specific purpose provision to aid in the interpretation of the other express prohibitory
paragraphs:
“The City of Lake Oswego shall insure that all development within a Nature Preserve is
consistent with the preservation of a Nature Preserve as a natural area available for
public enjoyment.”
To the extent it is a general purpose provision to provide context to Paragraph Three’s
prohibition against “parking lots, road, or trail for motorized vehicles,” and based on the
testimony that the existing sewer mains within Nature Preserves are not observed a s
permanently altering the “natural condition” or cause “habitat deterioration” per the definition
of a Nature Preserve (see, for example, Springbrook Park discussion immediately below), this
paragraph would support the interpretation that “road” does not include temporary
construction access for equipment.
Alternatively, if Paragraph One is given its own prohibitory effect, as urged by comments (see
Exhibits G-572, pg. 5, and G-587, pg. 2), its terms must be interpreted by using text and context,
legislative history, and maxims of construction. The commenters argue that all development
must be consistent with preserving a Nature Preserve as a natural area .15. First, by its terms,
some development is permissible: that which “preserves” the natural area. Second, if there
were no other Limitations of Development that permit certain types of development, one might
conclude without context that “retain their natural condition” means that no change could be
made to a Nature Preserve in any degree, for that change would alter the “natural condition.”
Yet, the context provided by the below paragraphs shows that “retain the natural condition” is
not to be interpreted absolutely as a “no change” prohibition because these paragraphs are not
stated to be exceptions to the “retain the natural condition” requirement of Paragraph One.
If Paragraph One is an independent restriction that must also be met, in addition to any related
express provision in Paragraphs Two through Eight (Paragraphs Two through Eight are not
exceptions to Paragraph One of development that would be contrary to Paragraph One, which
is conceded by the commenter of Exhibit G-572, pg. 5 but is nevertheless permitted
development), we look to Paragraphs Two through Eight to provide context of what
development would meet Paragraph One’s “consistent with the preservation of a Nature
Preserve as a natural area.”
15 “Natural area” is not expressly defined. By context within the Nature Preserve definition, a natural area is a
subset of parks and open space: “Nature Preserve means natural area parks or open spaces owned by the City of
Lake Oswego that are managed or maintained to retain their natural condition and prevent habitat deterioration .”
A natural area, therefore, is a park or open space that is to retain its natural condition a nd prevent habitat
deterioration.
Page 20 of 29
Paragraphs Two and Four provide context in defining development that is “remain[ing]
consistent with the natural conditions”:
• may build trails for hiking, jogging, horse-back and bicycle riding, may provide benches
and interpretive displays, and may provide picnic and sanitary facilities. [B]oardwalks
may be built; however, trails shall refrain from using hard surface materials, such as
asphalt and concrete, in order to remain consistent with the natural conditions of a
Nature Preserve. [Paragraph Two.]
Comment: Permanent above-ground development, e.g., trails, benches, displays, picnic
shelters, restrooms (sanitary facilities), and boardwalks are permitted as not being
inconsistent with the “natural condition” of a Nature Preserve . What would be
inconsistent with the natural condition is permanent hard surface trails, e.g., asphalt
and concrete, above ground. Installed underground sewer mains, with the construction
area replanted, would not seem to be inconsistent with the natural conditions, when
contrasted to such permitted permanent above ground facilities.
A commenter (Exhibit G-587, pgs. 2, 3) squares the development permitted in Paragraph
Two with Paragraph One’s “insure that all development … is consistent with the
preservation of a Nature Preserve as a natural area available for public enjoyment”
provision by arguing that if the development is to “facilitate public access and use,” then
that is, ipso facto, development “consistent with the preservation … as a natural area
available for public enjoyment.” This reads Paragraph Three as an exemption to
Paragraph One, which it is not styled as. Further, this begs the question whether an
underground sewer line impairs public access and use.
During construction of these permanent facilities, the public would not be permitted
within the construction area. Temporary exclusion of the public in the construction area
does not result their development being inconsistent with the “available for public
enjoyment” requirement of Paragraph One.
By expressly allowing “sanitary facilities,” which one presumes to be restrooms rather
than sewer lines because of the public use of the other structure in the list – picnic
facilities – the associated infrastructure for a restroom would be included, e.g., an
underground sewer line to the sewer main. The difference between a sewer line and
sewer main, once installed underground, is the size of the pipe. If a restroom facility
itself, and the associated underground sewer line, is not inconsistent with the natural
conditions under Paragraph One, an underground sewer main would also not be
inconsistent with the natural conditions under Paragraph One.
• not construct or develop (or allow any person to construct or develop) any facility or any
structure above ground that would impair or be inconsistent with the natural conditions
of a Nature Preserve. [Paragraph Four].
Page 21 of 29
Comment: The partial prohibition of above ground structures, without addressing
underground structures, suggests that underground structures could not by their very
nature trigger the limiting requirement on above ground structures. That is, only above
ground structures that “impair or be inconsistent with the natural conditions” of a
“Nature Preserve” are prohibited; above ground facilities that do not impair and are not
inconsistent with the natural conditions are permitted. While one might argue what
type of above ground structures would not “impair or be inconsistent with the natural
conditions of a Nature Preserve,” an underground facility would by its exclusion from
the triggering requirement imposed on above ground facilities necessarily not “impair or
be inconsistent with the natural conditions.”
Paragraph Two’s development that is therefore “consistent with the preservation of a Nature
Preserve as a natural area” under Paragraph One is:
[The City may] build trails for hiking, jogging, horse-back and bicycle riding, may provide
benches and interpretive displays, and may provide picnic and sanitary facilities.
[B]oardwalks may be built; however, trails shall refrain from using hard surface
materials, such as asphalt and concrete, in order to remain consistent with the natural
conditions of a Nature Preserve.
Permanent above-ground development, e.g., trails, benches, displays, picnic shelters (picnic
facilities), restrooms (sanitary facilities), and boardwalks are permitted by Paragraph Two and
are therefore not inconsistent with the “natural condition” of a Nature Preserve under
Paragraph One. What would be inconsistent, per Paragraphs Two and One, with the natural
condition is permanent hard surface trails, e.g., asphalt and concrete, above ground .
Construction of picnic facilities and restroom facilities, and even some soft surface trails, would
require temporary construction access, and thus the context of Paragraph Two is that
temporary construction access, with full mitigation plantings following completion, would be
development that is consistent with Paragraph One’s “preservation consistent with natural
area” requirement.
Similarly, Paragraph Four allows some development that would also necessarily comply with
Paragraph One:
“The City of Lake Oswego shall not construct or develop (or allow any person to
construct or develop) any facility or any structure above ground that would impair or be
inconsistent with the natural conditions of a Nature Preserve. [Paragraph Four].”
Again, above ground structures of a permanent nature would be permitted if they do not
“impair or be inconsistent with the natural conditions of a Nature Preserve.” In terms of above
ground structures, Paragraph Four reinforces that there are some types of compliant structures
but, like Paragraph One, does not provide much context to interpret the similarly vague test of
what will not be “inconsistent with the natural conditions of a Nature Preserve.” But by use of
“structure above ground,” that does provide context that a temporary construction access, with
Page 22 of 29
post-construction vegetation mitigation appropriate for a wetland within an RP District within a
Nature Preserve could not “impair or be inconsistent with the natural conditions of a Nature
Preserve” that would arise from a permanent above ground structure.
A comment (Exhibit G-572, pg. 5) cites Merriam-Webster’s “preserve” dictionary definition for
what would be a likely common understanding of the term “preservation”: "the activity or
process of keeping something valued alive, intact, or free from damage or decay.” Its online
dictionary16 has a similar definition:
• to keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction: PROTECT
• to keep alive, intact, or free from decay
• MAINTAIN
The question is whether a temporary construction access, with mitigation and planting of
appropriate wetland vegetation (considering that the construction area is in a wetland) clearly
harms or destroys, and does not maintain a wetland in a Nature Preserve. Given that some
development is permitted to occur that would have a permanent effect on the natural area of
Nature Preserve (see discussion above regarding Paragraphs Two and Four), and the mitigation
planting required afterward upon removal of the temporary construction access, the text and
context do not resolve the question.
Step Two: Legislative History:
The Explanatory Statement states that the
then version of Chapter X, stated “Chapter X,
which currently only applies to Springbrook
Park: ● Prohibits athletic facilities, parking lots,
and roads or trails for motorized vehicles.”
Thus, the meaning of “roads” as used in the
prior version would be continued into the
current version.
Springbrook Park has two sewer mains within
it, and a developed trail system. (See graphic).
It does not have any vehicle roads through the
park. As the voters continued the “road”
prohibition within Springbrook Park into the
Nature Preserves, the ability to have
temporary construction access for equipment
as needed to construct permitted
development, such as a sewer main but also
16 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preserve
Page 23 of 29
inclusive of other permitted development permitted under new Chapter X – would appear to
have been permissible in the voters’ mind.
Measure supporters Home, Louaillier and Holibaugh’s argument in favor stated that the
measure “allows for good stewardship including tree thinning and fire mitigation. It also allows
benches, trails, boardwalks, and ADA access.” Would the voters have generally thought that
such permitted development would be by hand development only, without temporary
construction access? The arguments in favor did not indicate that necessary construction
access for equipment to develop the park as permitted by Chapter X would, in fact, be
prohibited under the guise of “roads,” especially when that term was continued from the then
existing Chapter X that permitted development, e.g., “trails for hiking, jogging, horseback and
bicycle riding, and may provide picnic and sanitary facilities within Springbrook Park” [Pre-2021
Chapter X, Sec. 43].
To the extent “roads” are discussed in the legislative history most readily available to the
voters, i.e., the County’s official voter’s pamphlet (Attachment 1), the contrast of Measure 3-
568 to Measure 3-575 was about the nature of the users of “new public streets and roads” and
“non-public roads”, rather than any prohibition of temporary construction vehicle access. The
contrast of “roads” with “new public streets and roads” is one of public use v. City (owner) use,
such that, for example, a City-use-only roadway for permanent access in a park to a water
reservoir within the park would be subject to the same limitation on development under
Measure 3-565. Neither measure individually, or by contrast with the other, addresses
temporary construction vehicle access by “road” or “new public streets and roads.”
A comment (Exhibit G-572, pgs. 29-30, 33, 45-46, 54-55, and 65-66) provides copies of materials
that it, as a chief petitioner to the measure, made available to the public on its website and
through its media messages comparing its Chapter X amendment (which was adopted) to the
then existing Chapter X provision and to a competing City measure. As to the question of
whether “roads” included temporary construction access, no distinction is stated between the
original “roads” and the same word in the Chapter X amendment.
As previous construction within Springbrook Park would have included temporary construction
access for installation of sewer lines, the same scope to “roads” would be given . The voters
would conclude that as there was no change in the original text of Paragraph One, with the
exception of the applicable parks to which it applied , that development that had occurred in
Springbrook Park would continue to be permissible in the additional parks unless there was a
new express prohibition. Temporary construction access had occurred in Springbrook Park for
construction of sewer pipes, even though there then existed a prohibition against “roads,” so a
voter would have assumed that neither the same Paragraph One prohibition or the “road”
prohibition in Paragraph Three would be interpreted to result in a new prohibition on
temporary access roads under the 2021 Chapter X’s first and third paragraphs.
Page 24 of 29
Step Three: General Maxims of Construction
To define a term that is part of a list, one looks at the other items in the list to see if there is a
common characteristic. The other items in the list – parking lot and “trail for motorized vehicles
within a Nature Preserve” – are permanent facilities, not items that are constructed and
removed within several weeks.
Sub-conclusion. Looking at the text, context, legislative history and maxim of construction,
there is nothing to indicate that the voters would have understood a prohibition of “road”
within a list of “parking lot, road, or trail for motorized vehicles” to prohibit temporary
construction vehicle access for development otherwise permitted by Section 43.
ii. Tree Removal of 12 trees (#1, 2, 5-11, 13-18).
The express prohibitory text cited in the comments and testimony to tree removal as needed
for undergrounding of a sewer main is the “tree removal” provision in Paragraph Three17:
“The City of Lake Oswego shall not cut (or allow any person to cut) any tree in a Nature
Preserve for the purpose of facilitating the construction or development of …any parking
lot, road, or trail for motorized vehicles.” [Paragraph Three].
There is also an argument that tree removal would be contrary to Paragraph One:
“The City of Lake Oswego shall insure that all development within a Nature Preserve is
consistent with the preservation of a Nature Preserve as a natural area available for
public enjoyment.” [Paragraph One].
(1). Temporary Construction Access
Step One: Text and Context. Whether Paragraph Three prohibits tree removal for construction
access turns on the question of whether a temporary construction access is the “construction
or development of a road … for motorized vehicles.” A temporary construction access has
different characteristics than a road, given that it is temporary and that following the work, the
area will be replanted with vegetation that is appropriate for wetland restoration. (Exhibit F-
005). Thus, the legislative history must also be considered.
Whether Paragraph One prohibits tree removal as not “consistent with the preservation of a
Nature Preserve as a natural area” is addressed by the context of Paragraphs Three and Five.
Each expressly prohibit tree cutting when for a specific purpose: “for the purpose of facilitating
the construction or development of any Athletic Facility, any Telecommunications Facility, or
any parking lot, road, or trail for motorized vehicles” [Paragraph Three] and “for the purpose of
commercial logging” [Paragraph Five]. If all tree removals were automatically not “consistent
with the preservation of a Nature Preserve as a natural area” under Paragraph One, the special
17 Tree removal is also prohibited in Paragraph Four when done for the purpose of commercial logging. That
purpose is not raised here.
Page 25 of 29
purpose prohibitions of Paragraphs Three and Five would not be necessary. Thus, the context of
Paragraphs Three and Five show that tree removal is not prohibited by Paragraph One.
A comment (Exhibit G-587, pg. 1) states that “preserve,” when used within the Section 43
paragraphs, and here applied to Paragraph One, should be construed as incorporating the
definition of “preserve” as used in LCDC Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas
and Open Spaces, arguing that the voters adopted the Chapter X amendments to impleme nt
Goal 5 and “preserving the natural areas of the city owned park lands from loss against the
overreach of development….” See discussion in Section A.2 above, that Goal 5 was not part of
the context in the mind of the voters when considering “preservation ” under Paragraph One.
As noted above under subsection (i), a comment (Exhibit G-572, pg. 5) cites Merriam-Webster’s
“preserve” dictionary definition for what would be a likely understanding of the term
“preservation”: "the activity or process of keeping something valued alive, intact, or free from
damage or decay.” It’s online dictionary18 has a similar definition:
• to keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction: PROTECT
• to keep alive, intact, or free from decay
• MAINTAIN
The question is whether tree removal, with mitigation and planting of appropriate wetland
vegetation (considering that the construction area is in a wetland) clearly harms or destroys,
and does not maintain a wetland in a Nature Preserve. Given that some development is
permitted to occur that would have a permanent effect on the natural area of Nature Preserve
(see discussion about Paragraphs Two and Four), and that Paragraphs Three and Five prohibit
tree removal for specific purposes, and that such prohibition would not be necessary if al l tree
removal was prohibited by Paragraph One, the text and context resolves the question: tree
removal itself is not contrary to Paragraph One.
Step Two: Legislative History. If it were found that Step One did not answer the question, then
one moves to Step Two. The Measure Summary states that the measure prohibits “tree-cutting
for certain purposes.” The Explanatory Statement states that the measure “prohibits tree -
cutting for purposes of commercial purposes.” Measure supporters Home, Louaillier, and
Holibaugh’s argument in favor stated the measure allows for “tree thinning and fire mitigation.”
Measure supporters Wasko, et al, stated that the competing measure would allow the City to
“remove trees” without limitation, to the point that this measure would not. A commenter
(Exhibit G-572, pgs. 29-30, 33, 45-46, 54-55, and 65-66) included copies that it prepared during
the election to compare and contrast the commenter’s (as chief petitioner) measure effect with
the then current Chapter X provision (which was only applicable to Springbrook Park) and to a
competing City measure. The material notes that both the then existing Chapter X and the
commenter’s Chapter X amendments would similarly prohibit tree removal for “roads.”
Because “roads” is not further clarified, the legislative material provided to the voters does not
18 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preserve
Page 26 of 29
answer the question whether the current Chapter X prohibits tree removal for a temporary
construction access.
The voters would have understood that tree removal was permitted unless it was for a
prohibited purpose, which is raised here as to whether the prohibited purposes is for a “road.”
Thus, the same discussion of the legislative history for “road” above would apply here in
determining whether Paragraphs One and Three prohibit tree removal for the temporary
construction access.
Step Three: General Maxims of Construction. The same discussion of maxim of construction for
“road” above would apply here in determining whether Paragraph Three prohibits tree removal
for the temporary construction access.
(2). Installation and Maintenance of Sewer Main
Trees are not to be located within 7.5 feet of the centerline of the sewer main, in order to
prevent root intrusion.
“Clearance to manholes and underground pipelines such as City sewers, water mains,
and storm drains shall be 7 1/2 ft., as measured from the center of the pipeline or
manhole.” [LOC 42.18.1030(1)(c)].
Step One: Text and Context. As discussed in subsection (1) above, tree removal is prohibited if
for a specific listed purpose of Paragraphs Three and Five. Tree removal for purposes of
maintaining an underground sewer main is not listed a prohibited reason for seeking tree
removal by Paragraphs Three and Five.
The same discussion about the text and context of Paragraph One is applied here regarding tree
removal due to installation and replanting of wetland mitigation vegetation . Tree removal itself
is not contrary to Paragraph One.
Step Two: Legislative History. The same discussion in (1) above as to the legislative history
would apply here. The voters would have understood that tree removal was permitted by the
City unless it was for a prohibited purpose, which is raised here as to whether the prohibited
purpose is a permanent installation of a sewer main . See discussion in subsection (iii) below.
Step Three: General Maxim of Construction. None apply.
Sub-conclusion: Looking at the text, context, legislative history and maxim of construction,
there is nothing to indicate that the voters would have intended tree removal being prohibited
by Chapter X itself, except for the purposes stated in Paragraphs Three and Five, and the tree
removal is not for the purpose of “road” or commercial logging. Discussed below in subsection
(iii) is whether underground sewer installation is a permitted purpose under Chapter X. Further,
tree removal is not prohibited under Paragraph One, where following removal, appropriate
vegetation mitigation will be provided.
[Of course, if the minor development for the crossing of a RP District stream corridor is not
permitted, then removal of trees would not be permitted under LOC 55.02.035 / LOC
Page 27 of 29
55.02.080(1)’s requirement that trees required removal for development or landscaping
purposes.]
iii. Permanent undergrounding of sewer main by trenching, installing sewer
main, covering, and replanting, from the existing sewer manhole to the west
boundary of Waluga Park at the eastern end of unopened Baleine Street
The proposed development includes trenching, installing approximately 525 feet of sewer main
in Waluga Park-West, covering, and replanting. The sewer main would run from the existing
sewer manhole in the park to its westerly boundary at the Baleine Street right of way (ROW). Is
installation of a sewer main within a Nature Preserve prohibited by Chapter X?
Step One: Text and Context.
The prohibitory text cited in the comments and testimony to the installation of a permanent
underground sewer main is Paragraph One:
“The City of Lake Oswego shall insure that all development within a Nature Preserve is
consistent with the preservation of a Nature Preserve as a natural area available for
public enjoyment.”
The commenters and persons testifying state that the installation necessary for, and permanent
placement of an underground sewer main is not “consistent with the preservation of a natural
area.” A commenter (Exhibit G-587, pg. 2) argues that this paragraph should be read to prohibit
all development that does not benefit park users.
As noted earlier, Paragraph One is ambiguous as to whether or not it is an express prohibition
on certain types of development, e.g., those found to be not “consistent with the preservation
of a Nature Preserve as a natural area,” or whether it provides general context to the other
paragraphs that prohibit express development. The vagueness of its text, in contrast to the
other seven provisions, suggest that it is not itself an express prohibitory provision but rather
provides an overview and that the following seven express prohibitions are what constitute
development that is not “consistent with the preservation of a Nature Preserve as a natural
area.”
Assuming that Paragraph One is a prohibitory provision itself, it requires an interpretation of its
terms to determine whether installation of underground sewer main is not “consistent with the
preservation of a Nature Preserve as a natural area for public enjoyment.” We look to the text
and context to ascertain whether the proposed development does not preserve the Nature
Preserve as a “natural area for public enjoyment.” As discussed above in Subsection ii,
Paragraphs Two and Four show that above ground, permanent development is permissible in
certain cases as being “consistent with the preservation of a Nature Preserve as a natural area,”
and thus similar or less impactful development would not be contrary to Paragraph One.
If underground sewer lines in Nature Preserves were intended to be prohibited as necessarily
being inconsistent with “… a natural area for public enjoyment” under Paragraph One, and
considering that sewer lines existed under Springbrook Park in the original version of Chapter X
within Springbrook Park, and that above ground structures are permitted (either expressly or
Page 28 of 29
upon a finding that they do not “impair or be inconsistent with the natural conditions of a
Nature Preserve”), an express prohibition against underground lines would be required, rather
than through the ambiguous and vague text of “insure that all development is consistent with
the preservation … as a natural area available for public enjoyment.”
The question is whether a temporary installation of an underground sewer, with mitigation and
planting of appropriate wetland vegetation (considering that the construction area is in a
wetland) is contrary to Paragraph One. Given that some development is permitted to occur that
would have a permanent effect on the natural area of Nature Preserve (see discussion about
Paragraphs Two and Four), an underground sewer construction, with post-construction
mitigation of appropriate vegetation, would not be contrary to Paragraph One.
Step Two: Legislative History. If it were determined that the question was not resolved based
on the text and context, then Step Two analysis occurs. There is no statement within the
Explanatory Statement or the arguments in favor that underground lines would not be
permitted within the Parks, as was then the case. The arguments are about above ground
development. As discussed in subsection (i) above, the former Chapter X contained the same
text as in Paragraph One, with the exception that it was limited to Springbrook Park. The
drafters, and more importantly the voters, would be aware that Springbrook Park had sewer
lines installed, covered and the area replanted without being contrary to Paragraph One. A
voter would have no basis to conclude that installation of underground pipes in Nature
Preserves, as had existed under the original Chapter X applied to Springbrook Park, was now no
longer permitted.
Again, a comment (Exhibit G-572, pgs. 29-30, 33, 45-46, 54-55, and 65-66) provides copies of
materials that it, as a chief petitioner to the measure, made available to the public on its
website and through its media messages comparing its Chapter X amendment (which was
adopted) to the then existing Chapter X provision and to a competing City measure. As to the
question of whether underground sewer installation, with vegetative mitigation as had
occurred in Springbrook Park would now be prohibited upon passage of the Chapter X
amendments under Paragraph One, even though the text was the same (with the exception of
the parks listed), such a change in interpretation is not called out in the material.
Step Three: General Maxim of Construction. None apply.
Sub-conclusion: Looking at the text, context, and legislative history of Paragraph One, there is
nothing to indicate that the voters would have concluded that installation and maintenance of
underground sewer lines previously permitted and not expressly prohibited by Chapter X itself
would now be prohibited under Paragraph One’s ambiguous and vague text of “[in]consistent
with the preservation of a Nature Preserve as a natural area available for public enjoyment ,”
given that some above ground development was expressly permitted and that such express
authorization for above ground development was not an exception to Paragraph One’s
provisions.
Page 29 of 29
4. Sub-conclusion
Temporary Construction Access: A temporary construction access, with removal and
appropriate wetland natural area mitigation vegetation in order to construct permitted
development is not expressly prohibited as a “road” by Paragraph Three . To do so would be a
change a scope of “road” from pre-2021 Chapter X amendment (applicable to Springbrook
Park) without any text or legislative history clearly stating a change in meaning.
Further, such a changed wording of “road” to include temporary construction access
would prohibit development that is permitted under Chapter X because most of the permitted
development under Paragraphs Two, Four and Six would require temporary construction
access.
Paragraph One’s prohibition against development that is not “consistent with the
preservation of a Nature Preserve as a natural area” must be read in the context that
permanent above ground development is permitted by Paragraph Three and that does not
“impair or be inconsistent with the natural conditions of a Nature Preserve” permitted by
Paragraph Five.
Removal of Trees: Tree removal is not for a prohibited purpose under Paragraphs Three
and Five. Further, by context with Paragraphs Three and Five, and legislative history (including
construction work in Springbrook Park under the same text of then Chapter X, Section 43,
Paragraph One), tree removal, with subsequent appropriate mitigation plantings, is not
contrary to Paragraph One.
Installation of Underground Sewer Main: Installation of an underground sewer main,
with cover and planting of appropriate wetland mitigation plantings is not contrary to
Paragraph Four’s prohibition against above ground structures that “would impair or be
inconsistent with the natural conditions of a Nature Preserve.” Paragraphs Four and Two
provide context that such installation, undergrounding of a sewer main, and plantings is not
contrary to Paragraph One’s “consistent with the preservation of a Nature Preserve as a natural
area,” and voters would not have known that a new interpretation of the same “impair or be
inconsistent with the natural conditions” text in Paragraph One would now prohibit installation
(cover and mitigation planting) of underground sewer lines.
VOTERS’ PAMPHLET
SPECIAL ELECTION
NOVEMBER 2, 2021
City of Lake Oswego
City of West Linn
Lake Oswego School District
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue District
Not all Measures in this pamphlet will appear on your ballot. Your residence address determines the districts for which you may vote.
Sherry Hall
County Clerk
BALLOT DROP SITES
Please review the list below as several drop box
locations have changed.
Canby Civic Building
222 NE 2nd Ave.
Canby, OR 97013
Canby - Arnesan Garden
249 S Sequoia Parkway
Canby, OR 97013
Gladstone Civic Center
18505 Portland Ave.
Gladstone, OR 97027
Estacada City Hall
475 SE Main St.
Estacada, OR 97022
Estacada Public Library 825 NW Wade
Estacada, OR 97022
Lake Oswego City Hall
***Box access in parking lot off 4th Ave.380 A AveLake Oswego, OR 97034
Lake Oswego - Westlake Park***Box has been moved to lane that connects Bunick and Melrose parking lot. 14165 Bunick DrLake Oswego, OR 97035
Oregon City City Hall625 Center St.
Oregon City, OR 97045
West Linn City Hall
22500 Salamo RoadWest Linn, OR 97068
W est Linn Public Library1595 Burns St.
West Linn, OR 97068
Wilsonville City Hall29799 Town Center Loop EWilsonville, OR 97070
Clackamas County Elections 1710 Red Soils Ct, Suite 100 Oregon City, OR 97045
Voted ballots may be dropped off at any Drop Site until 8:00 pm on November 2, 2021.
Please Recycle
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Lake Oswego
Measure 3-568 Page 4
Measure 3-575 Page 8
City of West Linn
Measure 3-571 Page 12
Measure 3-572 Page 13
Lake Oswego School District
Measure 3-577 Page 14
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue District
Measure 34-308 Page 21
Not all measures in this Voters’
Pamphlet will be on your ballot.
Your residence address determines
the districts for which you may vote.
Your official ballot will contain the issues
which apply to your residence.
Measure filings appear in the order
which they will appear on the ballot, as
instructed by the Secretary of State.
Arguments in favor/opposition to a
measure appear in order in which each
type of argument was received at the
County Elections Division.
Returning Your Ballot
by Nov. 2, 2021 at 8:00 pm
Mail: Postage is NOT required. All Ballots must be received by 8 pm on Election Day. Mailing your ballot after Oct. 27th is not recommended. Postmarks do not count!
Drop Site: 24-Hour Outdoor Ballot Drop Boxes for convenient and secure deposits. Available Oct. 13th until Election Day at 8 pm.
Please check locations on cover as some boxes have been moved.
Your voted ballot may be dropped off at any official drop site in the State.
The Secretary of State’s drop box locator is:
www.oregonvotes.gov/dropbox
Please contact our office with any questions.
Clackamas County Elections
503-655-8510
VOTER INFORMATION
To Vote in Oregon, you must be registered in your
county of residence.
To Register, you must be:
● A US Citizen
● A resident of Oregon
● At least 16 years of age*
*you will not receive a ballot to vote until the election
on/after your 18th birthday.
How to Register
1. Online at oregonvotes.gov
2. Mail/Deliver a registration form to
Clackamas County Elections
1710 Red Soils Court, Suite 100
Oregon City, OR 97045
New Registrations must be postmarked 21 days
before Election Day.
If you make a mistake on your ballot, please make your choice obvious so that election officials can count it correctly. If you damage your ballot and need a replacement, or need further assistance, please contact the Elections Division at 503.655.8510 or email elections@clackamas.us.
If a ballot was delivered to your residence for somone who should no longer be receiving ballots at that address, please write “RETURN” on the unopened envelope and put it back in your mailbox.
If a ballot was sent to someone at your address who has passed away, please write “DECEASED” on the unopened envelope and place it in your mailbox to be returned to Elections.
Return your ballot to be received in our office or ballot drop site by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, Tuesday, November 2, 2021. If you return your ballot by mail, remember: the postmark does not count.
Measure Text and Arguments (if any) are printed as filed; no spelling or grammatical corrections are made.
Election Result Postings
www.clackamas.us/elections/results.html
After 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, you can navigate to current election returns with just a few clicks of the mouse.
3
Did you make amistake?
Don't tear up your ballot yet. You can fix it!
Please do NOT use corrective tape or white out.
Make your choice obvious so that election officials can count it correctly. Please review the examples of acceptable corrections.
For further assistance, contact our office at 503.655.8510.
Forgot your optional secrecy sleeve?
Relax!
Election workers will preserve the
privacy of your ballot if you forget to
enclose the secrecy sleeve and your
ballot will still count.
SL
E
E
V
E
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
This one
Not this
● Allows for restrictions to apply to any park property acquired by bond and designated by voters as subject to these restrictions.
A “yes” vote on Measure 3-568 would maintain and enhance Chapter X’s development limitations:
● Designates these natural parks as “Nature Preserves:” Springbrook Park, Bryant Woods Park, Canal Acres, Cooks Butte Park, Cornell Nature Area, Glenmorrie Greenway, Hallinan Woods, Iron Mountain Park, Kerr Open Space, Lamont Springs Natural Area, River Run I & II, South Shore Natural Area, Stevens Homestead, Stevens Meadows, West Waluga Park, and Woodmont Natural Park.
● Prohibits athletic facilities, parking lots, and roads or trails for motorized vehicles.
● Prohibits telecommunications facilities, asphalt and concrete hard-surface trails, and above-ground facilities or structures that would impair or be inconsistent with natural conditions.
● Prohibits tree-cutting for purposes of commercial logging.
● Allows trails for hiking, jogging, horseback, and bicycle riding.
● Allows picnic and sanitary facilities.
● Allows benches, boardwalks, and interpretive displays.
● Allows maintenance for ecological restoration that provides safe and healthy natural areas that are accessible for public enjoyment, provides a healthy habitat for wildlife, eliminates invasive species, restores native species, and mitigates fire hazards.
● Allows maintenance of existing facilities, structures, parking lots, roads or trails for motorized vehicle if not altered in any manner that would further impair or be inconsistent with natural conditions.
● Allows implementation of pre-existing park-specific master plans that may specify development otherwise restricted by this Chapter.
● Allows for restrictions to apply to any park property acquired by bond or if designated as a “Nature Preserve” by the conveying property owners, the City, or voters.
Any master plan for parks designated as “Nature Preserves” must be consistent with the charter amendment.
After citizens filed this initiative with sufficient signatures toqualify for the ballot, the Lake Oswego City Council referred a competing measure.
To become law, this Measure must receive a majority vote and more YES votes than the competing Measure.
Submitted by: Kari Linder City Recorder | Elections Officer
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT:
Lake Oswego’s City Charter currently does not contain development limitations for City-owned natural parks except for Springbrook Park, which has been protected under Chapter X - Park Development Limitation since 1978. This citizen-initiated measure repeals and replaces Chapter X to protect 15 additional natural parks with additional develoment limitations to preserve them as natural habitats accessible for public enjoyment.
Chapter X, which currently only applies to Springbrook Park:
● Prohibits athletic facilities, parking lots, and roads or trails for motorized vehicles.
● Allows trails for hiking, jogging, horseback, and bicycle riding.
● Allows picnic and sanitary facilities.
City of Lake OswegoMeasure 3-568
Referred to the People by Initiative Petition
RESTRICTS IMPROVEMENTS ON CERTAIN
LAKE OSWEGO PARK PROPERTIES
QUESTION: Should the Lake Oswego City Charter be amended to restrict improvements on certain city
park properties?
SUMMARY: This Charter amendment was placed on the ballot through an inititative petition.Applies initially to Bryant Woods Park, Canal Acres, Cooks Butte Park, Cornell Natural Area, Glenmorrie Greenway, Hallinan Woods, Iron Mountain Park, Kerr Open Space, Lamont Springs Natural Area, River Run, Southshore Natural Area, SpringbrookPark, Stevens Homestead, Stevens Meadows, West Waluga Park, and Woodmont Natural Park.Designates these properties as “Nature Preserves.”Prohibits above-ground facilities or structures that would impair or be inconsistent with natural conditions. Also prohibits hard-surface trails, parking lots, athletic fields or facilities, roads, trails for motorized vehicles, tree-cutting for certain purposes, and telecommunications facilities.Previously-constructed facilities or structures may be maintained if not altered in any manner that further impairs or is inconsistent with natural conditions. Allows soft-surface trails, benches, interpretive displays, and picnic and sanitary facilities.Allows the city to implement previously-adopted park master plans.Applies the same restrictions to any park property acquired in the future, if designated as a “Nature Preserve” by the conveying property owners, the
city, or voters.
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by the county.
4
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of
any statements made in the argument.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Protect Our Natural Parks
We’re fortunate for everything Lake Oswego offers, including: urban forests and abundant natural parks. When walking our streets 24 months ago, speaking with 900+ residents about the 3rd City attempt for a significant telecommunications facility atop Cooks Butte ― a deed violation, nearly all expressed frustration with decades of City development ambitions and a tedious public process that disenfranchises citizens’ voices. Many expressed worry for their neighborhood’s natural park. Over 4800 petition signers helped qualify this measure.
Precise, Deliberate, Intentional
I vividly recall the conversation with an Uplands resident regarding a similar plight by citizens in the 1970s to protect Springbrook Park from high density housing and a major athletic facility. Citizens voted 3:1 on Charter protections for Springbrook ― against fierce opposition from the Mayor and City-affiliated groups.
Measure 3-568 follows in Springbrooks’ footsteps to enact sensible legal protections our City fails to provide. This measure is written precisely, deliberately, and intentionally. It seeks protections limiting City development incompatible with keeping 16 designatednatural parks as healthy natural habitats with abundant wildlife for all to access and enjoy.
Limits Development
For 40+ years, Springbrook has proven well-crafted Charter protections limiting development work; 3-568 expands those limitations. Meanwhile:
• ADA honored for accessibility• Stewards continue providing valuable services maintaining healthy habitats• Infrastructure maintenance and fire mitigation efforts will provide for community needs and safety• Natural park master planning proceeds• Voters decide IF rare future need, otherwise prohibited, arises Endorsements!
“Sierra Club proudly endorses Measure 3-568. The measure defines natural park boundaries enabling the protection of natural habitats, while supporting accessibility of these areas for public enjoyment.” ― Oregon Chapter, Sierra Club
“Oregon Wild supports Measure 3-568 to protect and preserve the ecological values, publicaccess, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities provided by Lake Oswego’s parks.”― Jonathan Jelen, Oregon Wild
Get Informedwww.loveloparks.org
• Vote YES on Citizen-initiated Measure 3-568• Vote NO on City Council’s competing Measure 3-575
(This information furnished by Scott Handley, LoveLOParks)
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Lake Oswego Loves Our Natural Spaces
Our city is known for its natural parks and tree cover. These make Lake Oswego special. Unfortunately, special areas like these are not preserved without intentional legal protections. There are just too many different interest groups looking to exploit undeveloped spaces. Because the parks protected in this measure already exist, it costs taxpayers nothing to preserve our special places.
Our Natural Parks Deserve Clear Legal Protections
We need legal protection for these areas, and not rely on the best intentions of whomever happens to occupy the City Council over the next 20 to 30 years. Even ifone trusts the current City Council, another election with new council members is always coming. Once our natural areas are impacted, it takes a lifetime to recover, if ever at all.
Don’t Risk our Few, Irreplaceable Natural Parks
I endorse the citizens’ LoveLOParks measure 3-568 because of the straightforward and clear legal protections our Natural Parks deserve. (Visit www.loveloparks.org).
Vote YES on Citizen-Initiated Measure 3-568, which gives certainty to protecting our natural parks.
Vote NO on Measure 3-575, which relies on the good graces of our City Council and all those that follow.
Andy Stanger, Lake Oswego Resident for 45 years
(This information furnished by Andy Stanger)
5
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of
any statements made in the argument.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Don’t Get Fooled Again
We can’t trust the City of Lake Oswego to protect our natural parks. Three times since 1993 the City has tried to build a large communications tower in Cook’s Butte Park. We were there each time with our community to protect this natural habitat as granters John and Marjorie Emery intended for it to remain.
Cook’s Butte was created when the Emery’s deeded the City this 42 acres. They explicitly granted this land as a natural park under the condition it remain free of future commercial development and asked that it stay “forever wild.” A memorial left by John and Marjorie’s sons in remembrance reads:
“Much of the landFor this park was a gift to theLocal community by two people who livedNext to it for 48 years.They wished this forest and meadowTo remain forever wild.A meeting place for humanAnd non-human,A place to re-enter the worldBeyond our human habits.”
Measure 3-568 is about more than just Cook’s Butte. It addresses concerns neighbors across LO shared for their neighborhood natural parks.
City Council’s opposing measure won’t protect our natural parks; furthermore, their measure is vague and filled with loopholes which may allow future development in our natural parks. Citizens must unite to protect these natural spaces before they’re gone.
3-568 is more precise and focused on leaving our natural parks alone. 3-568 allows for good stewardship including tree thinning and fire mitigation. It also allows benches, trails, boardwalks, and ADA access.
We believe our natural parks should be protected and stay free from exploitation and development by Lake Oswego politicians. 3-568 was created by our citizens for our citizens. Our parks need your help!
Vote YES on Citizen-Initiated Measure 3-568 and NO on City Council’s Measure 3-575.
Brad Home – 50+ years; LHS ‘73Michael Louaillier – 29+ yearsMike Wilkins – 32+ yearsJan Holibaugh – Marjorie’s Friend; Emery Farm owner since 1993
(This information furnished by Brad Home,
Michael Louaillier, and Jan Holibaugh)
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
The LoveLOParks Measure 3-568 intentionally, deliberately, and precisely provides protection for 16 natural areas while allowing for public access (including ADA-compliant trails), maintenance, and stewardship.
The City’s competing measure is flawed because it doesn’t designate the protected areas within a natural park until after we vote, meaning part of a park may be excluded from protection. Its language about managing ecosystems is vague; it allows development of parking lots, paved trails and non-public roads within park boundaries which will destroy natural habitat and allow tree removal; it could allow for public telecommunications facilities; and it allows “other uses and facilities,” opening the door for development. It gives the City, especially Parks & Recreation, too much latitude. A recent example is Woodmont Park. The owner who deeded Woodmont specifically conveyed certain trees to remain; yet those trees were nonetheless bulldozed. Other examples include repeated efforts to expand the tennis center into Springbrook Park; a mountain biking path installed within a sensitive ecosystem in Iron Mountain Park; andrepeated attempts to build a telecommunications tower in Cook’s Butte.
The City claims its competing measure creates a robust public process. A public process is already required under goal 1 of the Oregon comprehensive plan (“citizen involvement”). In any event, the public process has let us down. Neighborhood associations and dozens of individuals repeatedly provide comments opposing tree removal, only to be ignored. If the public process relating to these tree removal applications has been largely ignored, why would it be any different with public input relating to natural areas?
The City wants “business as usual” to pave, remove trees, add facilities, and dispense lucrative construction and landscape contracts. With the climate crises and loss of biodiversity, we cannot afford business as usual.
Please vote YES on 3-568!
Betsy WaskoAnn MikulkaMatthias BeckmannNancy OsbornePierre ZubrinskyKathryn FortnerKaren DavittKimberly BeelerAlyson MillerCarol SarnowskiKenneth D. SarnowskiCindy KnowlesHollis McMilan
(This information furnished by Betsy Wosko,
Ann Mikulka, and Matthias Beckmann)
6
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of
any statements made in the argument.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Vote YES on Love LO Park’s Measure 3-568.
The City’s competing Measure 3-575, puts Springbrook Park, along with our other natural parks, at risk for over development. The City of Lake Oswego has a long history of attempting to undermine natural parks to fit a vision of our city the citizens do not share.
In 1969, the Pennington family donated 28 of the 52 acres that make up Springbrook to the City for a natural park. The Friends of Springbrook Park (which Ruth Pennington helped form) rescued the adjoining 24 acres from high-density housing with a special election in 1973.
The Mayor and City Council put full page ads in the Review to defeat the acquisition. They failed to sway voters, and the property was added to the existing park parcel. The initiative to add the adjoining acreage declared it as a natural park, but the City ignored that and built an indoor tennis center on the land.
The City attempted more unnatural development of Springbrook in 1978. They failed to sway voters when 75% voted in favor of a protective charter amendment. Chapter X was passed to further cement Springbrook’s status as a “Natural Park”. Chapter X will be expanded to other natural parks if Measure 3-568 passes, or effectively abolished if the City’s measure passes.
The Friends of Springbrook Park re-established in 2003 to form a Natural Resource Management Plan balancing the two important goals of the park; conservation and usage. The City had once again tried to add on to the tennis building. They were thwarted thanks to Chapter X.
Here we are in 2021, and the City sees an opportunity to nullify the protections offered by Chapter X. The choice we face is between preserving our natural parks or green lighting the City to over-develop them.
NO on Measure 3-375 and YES on 3-568.
Jean Eves (50 year resident)Lindy Mount (Lifelong resident)Brian Boucher (48 year resident)
(This information furnished by Jean Eves)
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION:
Measure 3-568 is insufficient and ineffective in protecting and preserving our natural areas.
It assumes that natural areas are all alike and that a blanket prohibition of certain activities will protect them. It will not. Measure 3-568 is a one-size-fits-all approach to a complex situation that does not recognize the unique qualities of each natural area. Yet even with this blanket approach, Measure 3-568 does not protect all of our natural areas.
Further, it restricts access for everyone regardless of physical ability, by prohibiting asphalt or concrete trails, needed by many of us at some point in our lives.
It prohibits the vehicular access needed by Parks maintenance to repair trails and bring in supplies,remove dangerous accumulations of dead materials, build fire breaks, provide for emergency vehicles, and respond to climate change.
It discourages full citizen participation in the planning and implementation of our natural areas byprohibiting any new master and management plans from having parking lots, paved trails and non-publicroads, even though these same facilities already exist in other natural areas, and even if residents wantthem. It means that any changes not specifically allowed in Measure 3-568 would need voter approval in city-wide elections. This is a waste of time and resources.
We need a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to protect, preserve and enhance all of our naturalareas. Measure 3-568 is not it.
Vote NO on Measure 3-568
Friends of Lake Oswego Parks Steering Committee
Mike Buck
Thomas Bland
Stephanie Wagner
Barbara Fisher
Jim Fisher
Robert Ervin
Doug McKean
Paul Lyons
Nancy Gronowski
(This information furnished by Nancy Gronowski,
Friends of Lake Oswego Parks)
7
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:
• 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 newtelecommunications 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 3-568 are approved, only the measure with the greater number of affirmative votes will become effective.
Submitted by: Kari Linder City Recorder | Elections Officer
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT:
The proposed “Preservation of Natural Areas” amendment of the City’s Charter revises Chapter X of the existingCharter 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 statisti-cally representative poll of 405 Lake Oswego voters; twopublic listening conversations attended by 26 local residents; and 26 individual conversations with community leaders and stakeholders from the community.
City of Lake OswegoMeasure 3-575
Referred to the People by the City Council
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 ofthe 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, andmaintenance 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 - ParkDevelopment Limitations,” which applies only to Springbrook Park.
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by the county.
8
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
JOIN MAYORS IN VOTING YES ON MEASURE 3-575
As your Lake Oswego mayors we urge you to vote YES on measure 3-575 and to vote NO on measure 3-568. Our individual viewpoints and perspectives are varied, and we each served the community at times of different challenges. But we all share a sincere love for our city and agree that the Lake Oswego community continually demonstrates a high priority for the care of its parks and natural spaces.
We support Measure 3-575 because it strengthens that commitment in several key ways:
1. It ensures all of our natural areas are protected against uses incongruent with their preservation and care, including the natural areas of active use parks.
2. It allows for community planning to determine if amenities such as hard surface trails andparking are appropriate for a given area.
3. It allows for equitable access to nature for people of different ages and abilities. Access inspires generations of the community to continue to care for the resources they love and advances a citywide culture that keeps our parks healthy.
In addition, we support Measure 3-575 because it both builds on and protects the way our community has managed and invested in natural areas for decades.
Through many “Friends of” groups, community engagement, planning and wise investment, LO’s dedication serves not just to maintain natural areas but further enhance and care for them.
As mayors we understand the significance of our city charter, and Measure 3-575 allows our community’s commitment to care for natural areas to continue for current and future residents without removing your voice in the process.
Competing Measure 3-568 falls short of empowering our residents to join together to ensure future generations enjoy the natural areas we love today.
Join us in voting YES on Measure 3-575 and NO on Measure 3-568.
Mayor Joe Buck (current)Mayor Kent Studebaker (2013-2020)Mayor Jack Hoffman (2009-2012)Mayor Judie Hammerstad (2001 - 2008)
(This information furnished by Joe Buck)
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Vote Yes to preserve our natural areas in Lake Oswego’s Parks. Friends of Springbrook Park supports the City’s referendum to Preserve Natural Areas, Measure #3-575.
Springbrook Park has had the protection of Chapter X of the City Charter to prohibit development since 1978. Measure 3-575 continues this safeguard and extends it to ALL THE CITY PARKS with natural areas. The measure also allows for ongoing improvements for possible ADA access, fire prevention, trail surface maintenance and continued invasive removal and planting efforts in all of our City’s natural areas. With the cooperation of Friends of Springbrook Park and the Parks and Recreation Department over the last twenty years, stewardship and prudent management of this great resource has flourished. Measure 3-575 embraces citizen volunteerism and planning to guide the future directions of ecological care. Vote YES on Measure 3-575.
Friends of Springbrook Park Board:Thomas BlandMelissa CadishH. Mike CarmichaelVirginia HainesAnne LiderEric LiderPaul LyonsKim SloatLaura Tanz
Friends of Iron MountainFriends of Woodmont ParkFriends of Hallinan Heights Woods
Amy Chase Herman, PresidentFriends of Rogerson Clematis Collection
Richard A. Herman, Board PresidentFriends of Luscher Farm
Mary Solares, ChairFriends of Southwood Park
(This information furnished by
Thomas C. Bland, Friends of Springbrook Park)
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of
any statements made in the argument.9
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statements made in the argument.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Healthy, Sustainable Natural Spaces Need Our Protection
The Oswego Lake Watershed Council (OLWC) and the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network (LOSN) support Measure 3-575.We can all agree that we value our natural areas throughout Lake Oswego. A walk in the woods supports both our bodies and our souls. But these natural areas need our protection and care if they are going to continue to thrive. Climate change threatens the viability of our natural areas and our urban forest. These areas require intensive management to remove dead and dying trees and replant species that are better adapted to our more intensely hot summers and windy, icy winters. Fire also threatens our natural areas and we need to be able to plan for active fire suppression.
This measure is written to include all the natural areas within the city, not a limited number, to guarantee the protection and improvement of natural spaces throughout the city.
Our natural areas need to be accessible to all our residents, including those with vision as well as mobility challenges. Hard surfaces, such as asphalt or concrete, allow the use of a white cane. We need to be able to plan in order to have quality trails that everyone can use.
Good natural resource management needs science- based planning and requires community input. Ballot measure 3-575 specifically outlines a process for planning and maintaining our city’s natural areas. This planning, coupled with active maintenance, will allowour natural areas to flourish in the future.
Please join us in voting yes on Measure 3-575 and together we can protect and enhance our precious natural areas.
Stephanie Wagner, Chair OLWCLisa Adatto, Chair LOSNMichael BuckBarbara FisherJames FisherThomas BlandMary RatcliffKathleen Fox WiensRobert SackDuke CastleDorothy AtwoodMike PerhamGabe WinfreyLaurance ZurcherThomas Berridge
(This information furnished by
Stephanie Wagner, Friends of Lake Oswego Parks)
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Measure 3-575 is about working together to protect all
of our Natural Areas.
As community leaders we want to work with the City to manage our valued assets, the City’s naturalareas. We look to motivate, inspire and gather people in productive ways that create and sustain meaningful transformation. We look to see how best to contribute our energies to the restoration and enhancement of natural areas so they continue to thrive in the future. These natural lands provide many environmental benefits, contributing to our sense of identity and pride as citizens of Lake Oswego.
Measure 3-575 respects what active people are doing collaboratively to preserve and protect our beloved natural areas. It invites fuller participation in the effort to make our natural open spaces places of healthy habitat for both humans and wildlife. To “preserve and protect” means that we residents are caretakers, responsible for positive change in these cherished spaces. This Measure was written after listening to the voices of people who have experience working in our natural areas. By casting your vote in favor of 3-575, you are joining and supporting this ongoing dialogue of trusting care.
Lake Oswego City Councilors John Wendland Massene Mboup Aaron Rapf Jackie Manz Rachael VerdickFormer Lake Oswego City Councilors Bill Tierney Jeff Gudman Skip O’Neill Charles CollinsLake Grove Neighborhood Association Dan Anderson Charles Fisher Trudy Corrigan Robert Dove Jerome NierengartenUpland Neighborhood Association Larry Wobbrock Robert ErvinHallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Chris Huettemeyer Christy Clark Sarah EllisonFriends of Hallinan Heights Woods Gary Thompson Bill AbadieFriends of Iron Mountain Park Susanna Campbell Kuo Doug Hawley Cliff BreedloveDoug McKean Chris Thompson Cheryl Uchida Allan SolaresKaren Jacobson Kit CorriganJan Castle Thomas AtwoodBruce Brown Alex AdhdaeiRachel Garrett Janet BuckSusan Greer Mike DarcyMignon Ervin
(This information furnished by
Stephanie Wagner, Friends of Lake Oswego Parks)
10
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of
any statements made in the argument.
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION:
Vote NO on Measure 3-575
Measure 3-575 is a rebuttal to citizen-initiated Measure 3-568 by City Council and some community members. Multiple attempts to reach common ground with Measure 3-575’s authors were made; they refused and insisted we abandon our efforts. Don’t be misled by nice sounding words and slogans that provide fewer legal protections under the guise of preservation; Springbrook Park would lose protections enjoyed since 1978 and 15 other natural parks would continue to be at risk.
Waste of taxpayer resources
It should raise concern the City engaged a political firm, Praxis Political, at taxpayer expense for a rushed, biased, and political “public process” that resulted in no material changes to the draft text first presented to City Council on June 15, 2021 and ratified on Aug 3rd. A “public process”for such an important effort would assuredly shape the outcome more substantially.
The numbers don’t add up
One should also question the City’s claims on engaging 812 residents. Individuals could participate in 1 or all 4 activities and many did. Additionally, Lake Oswego residency was never verified. Contrast that with over 4,800 petition signatures, 4,433 from certified Lake Oswego voters, that qualified citizen-initiated Measure 3-568 for the ballot.
3-575’s Charter text:
• Inaccurately renames Chapter X falsely describing its intent and effect• Fails to specify natural park acreage and boundaries until a later date• Risks the potential to divide parks into natural and developable areas• Eliminates several protections sought after in citizens’ Measure 3-568• Redefines telecommunications facility that may allow for public towers• Removes certain existing protections from Springbrook Park• Enacts the same tedious public process for “other uses and structures” that minimizes citizen involvement and voice
This is “business as usual” and NOT the development limitations citizens seek.
Get Informedwww.loveloparks.org
Please join our grassroots effort:
• Vote NO on City Council’s Measure 3-575• Vote YES on Citizen-initiated Measure 3-568
(This information furnished by Scott Handley, LoveLOParks)
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION:
This Measure is a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Although it pretends to support “preservation” of Lake Oswego natural areas, it in fact erodes protections for Springbrook Park. It also uses vague and innocuous sounding phrases like “ecological restoration”: Do not be fooled, in one LO City sponsored “listening” session, the destruction at Woodmont Park was described as “restoration”. This measure allows the City to partition our natural parks into developable areas without additional voter review and approval. This measure provides virtually no protection for our natural parks.
Vote NO on Measure 3-575
This LO City measure (3-575) was written to allow the City to develop our natural parks in any way they see fit. They were concerned that the competing LoveLOParks citizens’ measure (3-568) would do what it was intended to do, preserve our natural parks. Development of our natural parks should require LO voter approval, which measure 3-575 does not require.
The LoveLOParks measure (3-568) ensures 15 additional natural parks have the same legal protections that Springbrook Park currently has, and it includes clear legal protections against development in these natural parks (visit www.loveloparks.org to see the comparison chart of these two competing measures).
Vote NO on Measure 3-575, which allows City development of our natural parks
Vote YES on Citizen-Initiated Measure 3-568, which provides clear legal protections for our natural parks
Kirsten Sommer, Lake Oswego Resident for 20 years
(This information furnished by Kirsten Sommer)
11
This is not a Funding Measure This is not a funding measure for road, sidewalk and bike improvements within the WFD/I205 area. Chapter XI, Section 46 of the West Linn Charter states that “[o]nly facilities directly necessary for the use of Park shall be considered authorized.” Therefore, to comply with the Charter there must be a public vote to determine if the Park should be used to construct transportation improvements. The WFD Concept Plan has been produced, but the final design is not complete; so, the exact location of theroad improvements has not been determined.
Why this Measure is ProposedThe WFD/I205 interchange area is a primary travel corridor within the City. Currently, the area lacks complete bike and pedestrian facilities. The goal of the planned improvements is to better connect commercial areas to the rest of the community andprovide safer transportation facilities for all users, while improving access to City parks and open space in accordance with the TSP.
To construct road, sidewalk and bike improvements along WFD/I205 would take additional limited city-owned park space. If this measure passes, the City will use a portion of the Park to grade and construct these improvements.
Research & Background The 2016 West Linn TSP and WFD Concept Plan resulted in a conceptual design that provides pedestrian and bike access within the WFD/I205 area so residents can safely travel by foot, bike, or vehicle. The TSP found that there is limited pedestrian and bike connectivity with significant gaps in the sidewalk network that results in residentialareas that are not consistently connected to commercial centers, bus routes, or other pedestrian destinations.
If This Measure is ApprovedThis measure is not a bond measure to fund road improvements. However, if this measure passes, road, sidewalk and bike facilities would be allowed along the frontage of West Bridge Park. More information on the WFD Concept Plan and the proposed locations of road, sidewalk and bike facilities are available online at:www.WestLinnOregon.gov/elections.
Submitted by: Jerry Gabrielatos City Manager
NO ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR/OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE WERE FILED
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT:
About this MeasureIf approved, this measure would allow a portion of West Bride Park (“Park”) located within the Willamette Falls Drive/Highway 43/I-205 Interchange area (“WFD/I205”) to be used to complete improvements such as sidewalks and separated bike lanes (cycle tracks). Pedestrian and bike access is proposed in this area to provide safer facilities forpedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. The City is placing this measure on the ballot because the WFD 2021 Conceptual Design Plan (“WFD Concept Plan”) would modify the TSP and result in the construction of transportation improvements that impact thislocation and, to comply with the West Linn Charter, voter approval is needed.
City of West LinnMeasure 3-571
Referred to the People by the City Council
WILLAMETTE FALLS DRIVE ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS IN WEST BRIDGE PARK
QUESTION: Shall the City impact portions of West
Bridge Park to construct road improvements to
Willamette Falls Drive and Highway 43?
SUMMARY: If approved, this measure would allow
the frontage of West Bridge Park to be used for road
improvements, including required grading to install
sidewalks and separated bike lanes along Willamette
Falls Drive/Highway 43/I·205 Interchange. Willamette
Falls Drive/Highway 43/I-205 Interchange road
improvements are proposed in this area to provide
improved facilities that are safer for pedestrians,
cyclists, and motorists.
The 2016 West Linn Transportation System Plan
( “ TSP “ ) identified a need for bike and pedestrian
routes that connect parks, schools, and retail. The City
is putting this measure on the ballot because Section
46 of the City Charter requires West Linn voters to
approve any use of City owned open space for a
“ non-authorized use, ” including “ construction of
facilities that are not directly required for the use of
the park or open space. ” If this measure passes, the
City can impact a portion of West Bridge Park along
Willamette Falls Drive/Highway 43/I-205 Interchange
to provide sidewalks, separated bike lanes, and road
improvements.
The above information has not been
verified for accuracy by the county.
12
This is not a Funding Measure This is not a funding measure for road, sidewalk and bike improvements along WFD. Chapter XI, Section 46 of the West Linn Charter states that “[o]nly facilities directly necessary for the use of Park shall be considered authorized.” Therefore, to comply with the Charter there must be a public vote to determine if the Park should be used to construct transportation improvements along WFD. The WFD Concept Plan has been produced, but the final design is not complete; so, the exact location of the road improvements has not been determined.
Why this Measure is ProposedWFD is a road running through West Linn,connecting Highway 43 and West Linn City limits near the Tualatin River. Currently, there are sidewalks and bike lanes along parts of WFD, but many areas lack these facilities. Crossing opportunities are also limited. The goal of the WFD project is to add improvements along WFD in accordance with the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and concept plans to better connect commercial areas to the rest of the community and provide safer transportation facilities for all users, while improving access to City parks and open space.
To construct road, sidewalk and bike improvements along WFD would take additional limited city-owned park space. If this measure passes, the City will use a portion of the Park to grade and construct these improvements.
Research & BackgroundThe 2016 West Linn TSP and WFD Concept Plan resulted in a conceptual design that provides pedestrian and bike access along WFD so residents can safely travel by foot, bike, or vehicle. The TSP found that there is limited pedestrian and bike connectivity with significant gaps in the sidewalk network that results in residential areas that are not consistently connected to commercial centers, bus routes, or other pedestrian destinations. The TSP identifies sidewalks and bike lanes along WFD as a high priority.
If This Measure is ApprovedThis measure is not a bond measure to fund road improvements. However, if this measure passes, road, sidewalk and bike facilities would be allowed along the frontage of Fields Bridge Park. More information on the WFD Concept Plan and the proposed locations of road, sidewalk and bike facilities are available online at: www.WestLinnOregon.gov/elections.
Submitted by: Jerry Gabrielatos City Manager
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT:
About this MeasureIf approved, this measure would allow a portion of Fields Bride Park (“Park”) along Willamette Falls Drive (“WFD”) to be used to complete improvements to WFD, such as sidewalks and separated bike lanes (cycle tracks). Pedestrian and bike access is proposed in this area to provide safer facilities for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists along WFD. The City is placing this measure on the ballot because the WFD 2021 Conceptual Design Plan (“WFD Con-cept Plan”) would modify the TSP and result in the construction of transportation improvements thatimpact this location and, to comply with the West Linn Charter, voter approval is needed.
City of West LinnMeasure 3-572
Referred to the People by the City Council
WILLAMETTE FALLS DRIVE ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS IN FIELDS BRIDGE PARK
QUESTION: Shall the City use a portion of Fields
Bridge Park to construct road improvements to
Willamette Falls Drive?
SUMMARY: If approved, this measure would allow
the frontage of Fields Bridge Park to be used for road
improvements, including required grading to install
sidewalks and separated bike lanes along Willamette
Falls Drive. Willamette Falls Drive road improvements
are proposed in this area to provide improved facilities
that are safer for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
The 2016 West Linn Transportation System Plan
( “ TSP “ ) identified a need for bike and pedestrian
routes that connect parks, schools, and retail. The
TSP includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities along
Willamette Falls Drive as high priorities. The City is
putting this measure on the ballot because Section 46
of the City Charter requires West Linn voters to
approve any use of City owned open space for a “ non-
authorized use, “ including “ construction of facilities
that are not directly required for the use of the park
or open space.” If this measure passes, the City can
impact a portion of Fields Bridge Park along Willamette
Falls Drive to provide sidewalks, separated bike lanes,
and road improvements.
NO ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR/OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE WERE FILED The above information has not been
verified for accuracy by the county.13
Lake Oswego School DistrictMeasure 3-577
Referred to the People by the Board
BONDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS, CURRICULUM
SUPPORT FACILITIES, SAFETY UPGRADES,
ADDRESS OVERCROWDING
QUESTION: Shall District upgrade, construct, modernize facilities, address overcrowding, improve safety, accessibility, career education and issue $180,000,000 general obligation bonds? If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to the limits of sections 11 and 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution.
SUMMARY: Lake Oswego School District will receive State matching funds of $4,000,000 only if bonds are approved.
Bonds are expected to fund: ● Construct new school buildings • Lake Oswego Middle School • River Grove Elementary ● Modernize classrooms • Renovate high school labs for expanded STEM, Career Technical Education • Replace outdated computers ● Address priority capital repairs • Replace roofs • Enhance, repair HVAC, electrical, plumbing systems • Upgrade finishes • Seismic upgrades for immediate occupancy • Asbestos abatement ● Improve accessibility • Improve walkways, restrooms, parking lots, playgrounds, entrances ● Safe, secure campuses • Update fire alarm, monitoring, broadcast systems • Upgrade door hardware • Add secure glass ● Site improvements, demolition, furnishings, equipment, bond costs.
This $180,000,000 bond is projected to cost an additional $0.92/$1,000 of assessed value annually. For the median home assessed value of $420,000, that is approximately $385 per year. Actual rates depend on market conditions when bonds are sold. This measure is on the ballot now because the District expects costs to increase. Bonds would mature not more than 26 years from issuance and may be issued in series.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
What
Lake Oswego School District has placed a capital bond on the 2021 ballot. This bond is the second phase in a planned three-part construction and capital improvement program. The bond would provide funds to: rebuild a middle school; rebuild an elementary school; modernize science, technology and engineering labs at the high schools; and address priority capital repairs, improve accessibility, and make safety and security upgrades in facilities districtwide.
If the bond measure is approved, the District will receive $4,000,000 in matching state grants.
How
The Bond Development Committee, led by citizen volunteers, reviewed the Long Range Facility Planning Committee Strategic Plan, educational adequacy and school facility condition assessments, and projects contemplated as part of a three part construction program. The committee made recommendations based on present and future facility needs. Guided by the committee’s recommendations and feedback from community outreach and voter polling, Lake Oswego School Board of Directors propose that bond funds, if approved, be used to: ● Construct New Buildings and Relieve Capacity Constraints: Rebuild Lake Oswego Middle and River Grove Elementary Schools to eliminate portable classrooms, relieve overcrowded classrooms and common areas and support best practices in education; new buildings would be constructed to immediate occupancy standards in a seismic event and include right of way improvements to parking lots, sidewalks and neighborhood traffic patterns. ● Increase Opportunities for CTE and STEM: Renovate, update and equip science, engineering, and computer labs at high schools to support new and expanded STEM and Career Technical Education programs. Replace outdated computers throughout the district. ● Address Priority Repairs to Preserve Community Assets: Enhance HVAC systems to improve air quality, repair aging electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems, and repair interior and exterior finishes to preserve integrity of buildings throughout district; additionally, upgrade kitchen to support meal service for students, construct seismic upgrade for immediate occupancy, and conduct asbestos abatement at Palisades Elementary School; and replace deteriorating roof at Lake Oswego High School. ● Improve Accessibility: Make accessibility improvements to walkways, restrooms, parking lots, playgrounds, gardens and entrances throughout District to ensure all students, staff, and community members can have access to public buildings. ● Improve Safety and Security: Throughout the District, update fire alarm and sprinkler systems; install additional cameras for sight improvement and video monitoring; update campus communication broadcast systems; upgrade door hardware; and add intrusion-limiting glass.
Why
Aging school buildings with inadequate, outdated, unsafe, inefficient and overcrowded classrooms and common areas. New school buildings will increase capacity while providing students and staff with safe, welcoming and modern learning environments.
The bond measure will fund targeted capital improvements at all schools and improve buildingsystems to enhance efficiencies. The bond measure will also fund classroom expansion and renovation conducive to career-based learning.
How Much
This bond is for $180,000,000 and is projected to cost an additional $0.92/$1,000 of assessed value annually. Actual rates may vary based upon market conditions when the bonds are sold and changes to assessed value.
Submitted by: Dr. Jennifer Schiele, Superintendent
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by the county.
14
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by the county.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Vote YES on Measure 3-577: Lake Oswego studentsdeserve safe schools.
When children feel safe, they are more successful inschool. Our community should do everything we can to help keep students safe and protect against emergencies.
This bond will improve safety and security throughout the district by updating fire alarm and sprinkler systems,campus communication broadcast systems, and doorhardware; adding intrusion-limiting glass; and improvingventilation and air filtration systems. River GroveElementary and Lake Oswego Junior High will be rebuilt entirely to immediate occupancy seismic standards, which will keep students safe in the event of a catastrophic earthquake, enable the schools to function as community emergency shelters, and allow the district to expedite reopening.
Vote YES on Measure 3-577: Lake Oswego studentsdeserve modern classrooms.
Education requirements are changing constantly in today’s world and the school district must do everything it can to give our students a competitive edge. This bond will pay to modernize science, engineering, and computer labs at both high schools for enhanced STEM and career and technical education experiences that help students graduate career-or college-ready.
Vote YES on Measure 3-577. Lake Oswego studentsdeserve an exceptional education.
The Lake Oswego School Bond strengthens ourcommunity’s reputation for excellence. It ensures that our district has the facilities it needs to deliver a world-class education, keeping us number one in the state and among the top districts in the nation. Exceptional schools also are good for our local economy, bolstering our home values.
The Building Great Lake Oswego Schools coalition iscomprised of parents, teachers, elected officials, smallbusiness owners, and other civic leaders who are eager to support a YES vote on Measure 3-577 for safe, modern, and exceptional schools.
Learn more about our campaign on the Building Great Lake Oswego Schools website:
www.BuildingGreatLOSchools.com
(This information furnished by Courtney A. Clements,
Building Great Lake Oswego Schools)
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of
any statements made in the argument.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Safe and Secure Classrooms for all Lake OswegoStudents and Staff
Lake Oswego students, teachers and staff deserve safeand secure classrooms. Measure 3-577 prioritizesinvestments that make sure that every student can learn - and every educator can teach - in a classroom that will keep them safe.
The 2017 Lake Oswego School Bond included substantial investment in student safety and security. After years of community engagement, the Lake Oswego School Bond has been designed to continue this work by explicitly prioritizing investments that bring our outdated school buildings up to safety code.
A YES VOTE ON MEASURE 3-577 WILL FUND SAFETY AND SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS AT EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT, INCLUDING:
● Updating outdated fire alarms ● New security technology, including campus broadcast systems ● Installing additional cameras ● Internally-locking classroom doors ● Installation of secure glass ● Investments in HVAC systems for cleaner air ● Replacing aging boilers, air filtration systems ● Two new schools built to modern seismic standards, to not only survive an earthquake but serve as emergency community shelters
After decades of disinvestment, Lake Oswego’s agingschool buildings are inadequate, outdated, unsafe,inefficient, with overcrowded classrooms and commonareas.
With wildfires and smoke getting worse every summer and fall, schools are increasingly ill-prepared to provide safe, comfortable classrooms, having to choose between extreme temperatures or hazardous levels of air pollution. This school bond invests in efficient, modern ventilation systems that keep our kids safe and our schools functional as our climate changes.
Without passage of the school bond, our schools will remain ill-equipped to protect students’ safety and security from a variety of potential incidents.
In addition to $142 million in investments for two newschools built to modern safety standards, Measure 3-577 will direct $3 million to safety improvements at schools across the district - with every dollar accounted for by an independent, citizen-led Community Oversight Board.
Let’s continue to invest in the safety of our students.Vote YES on Measure 3-577.
(This information furnished by Liz Hartman,
Building Great Lake Oswego Schools)
15
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of
any statements made in the argument.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
SCHOOL BOND FUNDS BETTER CLASSROOMS,ADDRESSES OVERCROWDING, INVESTS INENERGY-EFFICIENCY
Lake Oswego’s schools are aging and in need of repair.
Lake Oswego Middle School was built in 1957 - two years before Alaska became a state.
Rivergrove Elementary was built in 1968 - one year before Apollo 11 landed on the moon.
It’s difficult to teach in classrooms with leaky roofs, drafty windows, or broken heating systems. It’s even more difficult for students to learn in these environments.
A YES vote provides funding to rebuild Lake OswegoMiddle and River Grove Elementary Schools to prepare for expected growth in the district. A YES vote also provides funding to replace the existing portable classrooms with permanent buildings.
Lake Oswego’s aging school buildings are inadequate,outdated, unsafe, inefficient, and overcrowded. New school buildings will increase capacity while providing students and staff with safe, welcoming and modern learning environments.
The 2017 Lake Oswego School Bond started our efforts to modernize our buildings. The 2021 Bond continues this work, providing the resources necessary for the district to build two brand new buildings and invest in campus modernization efforts at schools across the district.
Lake Oswegans will save money in the long run byinvesting in energy efficiency - upgrading windows andinsulation, repairing or replacing aging heating and cooling systems and using LED lighting wherever possible. This will lower the district’s carbon footprint and save money on energy bills.
Updated classrooms make it easier for educators to teach, for students to learn, and save the district money. Measure 3-577 ensures our classrooms are prepared for teachers to efficiently and effectively educate students.
Let’s continue to modernize Lake Oswego’s schools.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE 3-577.
(This information furnished by
Miles Haladay, Building Great Lake Oswego Schools)
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
INVEST IN SCHOOLS TO CONTINUE LAKE OSWEGO’S TRACK RECORD OF EXCELLENCE.
Lake Oswego’s schools have a reputation for excellence.
94% of students graduated on time in 2021 - in the top 5% of the state.
Our two high schools are consistently ranked in the top ten statewide for academic achievement (5th and 8th in 2021, according to the US News Best High School Rankings).
More than 65% of LO students will take at least one APclass before they graduate.
We have great schools here in Lake Oswego. Voting YES to Build Great Lake Oswego Schools will give the district the resources necessary to continue to provide a top-notch education for every child in the district, for current and future generations of students.
21st CENTURY CLASSROOMS FOR A 21st CENTURY
EDUCATION
Across the country, school districts are enhancing theirScience, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics(STEM) curricula. Funding from the Student Success Act passed in 2019 as well as Measure 98 in 2016 have further supported Career and Technical Education to ensure every student is well prepared for a career in a changing economy.
$10 Million of the Lake Oswego School Bond will renovate high school labs for expanded STEM and CTE Education. The bond will also provide funding for new computers and other technology. These investments in modernized science, technology and engineering labs at the high schools are investments in preparing Lake Oswego students for a 21st century economy.
Lake Oswego has exceptional schools, and we provide an exceptional education to our students. With passage of Measure 3-577, we can ensure that future generations of Lake Oswego students will similarly enjoy a top-notch education, in classrooms ready to prepare them for their future.
Vote Yes on Measure 3-577 for Exceptional LakeOswego Schools.
(This information furnished by
Mark Birge, Building Great Lake Oswego Schools)
16
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of
any statements made in the argument.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Lake Oswego Parents Are Voting YES for LakeOswego’s Schools
As parents, we are asking you to VOTE YES on Measure 3-577 to invest in Lake Oswego’s schools, Lake Oswego’s neighborhoods, and Lake Oswego’s children.
Community leadership from parents and parent clubsacross Lake Oswego has deeply informed every detail of this School Bond. We’ve helped ensure the top needs and priorities of our students are reflected in every dollar spent by this proposal.
That’s why we’re asking you to join us and other parents across Lake Oswego School District and vote YES on Measure 3-577. A YES vote will continue the commitment our city began in 2017 to modernize our schools.
Join parents across the district and VOTE YES onMeasure 3-577:
Miles Haladay, Forest Hills Elementary SchoolSelena and Nathan Borne, Hallinan Elementary SchoolErin Courtney, Lake Grove Elementary SchoolSalumeh Loesch, Lake Grove Elementary SchoolCheri Partain, Lake Oswego High School Elizabeth Welsh, Lake Oswego High SchoolJennifer Zagacki, Lake Oswego High SchoolMolly and John Ducker, Lake Oswego High SchoolLaurie Cremona Wagner, Lake Oswego High SchoolSosanda Erdmann, Lake Oswego High School and Lake Oswego Junior High SchoolWayne Ha, Lake Oswego High SchoolDan Jarman, Lakeridge High School and Lakeridge Middle SchoolJennifer Petersen, Lakeridge High School and Lakeridge Middle School Lara James, Lakeridge High SchoolMonicah McGee, Lakeridge High SchoolSarah Howell, Lakeridge High School and Lakeridge Middle SchoolHeather Wick, Lakeridge Middle SchoolMark Birge, Lakeridge Middle SchoolKathleen Voboril, Oak Creek Elementary SchooIKimvi To, Oak Creek Elementary SchoolKristin Martin, Oak Creek Elementary SchoolMatthew Kahl, Oak Creek Elementary SchoolAndrea and Luis Baez, Palisades Elementary SchoolAbigail Otano-Haffner, Palisades Elementary School PTO PresidentAbby Stonewall Kapp, River Grove Elementary SchoolKelli Cliff, River Grove Elementary School PTA PresidentAmber Albin, Westridge Elementary School and Lakeridge Middle SchoolMini Zhang, Westridge Elementary School and Lakeridge High School
Follow our campaign on facebook!https://www.facebook.com/GreatLOSchools
(This information furnished by
Heather Wick, Building Great Lake Oswego Schools)
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Educators Agree: Teachers thrive with safe, modernschools. Vote YES on Measure 3-577 to Build GreatLake Oswego Schools.
It’s been a rough couple years to be a teacher.Instead of decorating classrooms, organizing supplies, and arranging desks, Lake Oswego’s teachers spent much of last year in previously unthinkable circumstances mastering new online platforms, adapting lesson plans for online learning, and designing new ways to engage young learners. It has been a learning curve for educators, students, and families, and has showcased the resilience and dedication of our community.
With educators returning to in-person learning this fall, it is more apparent than ever that teachers need safe, modern, and excellent classrooms. Passing the 2021 Lake Oswego School Bond will ensure that current and future Lake Oswego students will learn in modern, safe,and healthy classrooms. Our collective response to managing the pandemic has highlighted issues with our facilities that have existed for decades: poor ventilation, inoperable windows, leaky roofs, unreliable heating, and a lack of ADA accessibility in many schools.
We must continue to rejuvenate our aging school buildings. This bond will fund two new schools and continue much needed repairs and renovations across the district.
Vote YES on Measure 3-577.
Lake Oswego Education AssociationJaime Ohr, Hallinan Elementary School Literacy SpecialistRobin Lindsay, Hallinan Elementary School TeacherAnne Nudelman, Hallinan Elementary School Education AssistantMolly Durrett, Lake Grove Elementary School TeacherKatie Brink, Lake Oswego High School TeacherKira Wehn, Lake Oswego Jr High School Special Education AssistantShannon Todd Lake Oswego Jr High School teacherMichael Helle, Lakeridge High School TeacherRosa Pena, Lakeridge Middle School TeacherKurt Schultz, Lakeridge Middle School PrincipalRenee Santana, Oak Creek Elementary School TeacherAna Ryan, River Grove Elementary School Head SecretaryJill Crawford, River Grove Elementary School TeacherLindsay Harvey, Westridge Elementary School TeacherAngela Matteri, Westridge Elementary School TeacherBill Korach, Retired LOSD SuperintendentRicky Korach, Retired LOSD English Department ChairKelly Troike, LOSD Instructional Coach
(This information furnished by
Sarah Howell, Building Great Lake Oswego Schools)
17
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of
any statements made in the argument.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Lake Oswego Business Leaders: An Investment in Schools is an Investment in our Economy.
As leaders and entrepreneurs of businesses large andsmall across Lake Oswego, we ask you to vote YES on the Lake Oswego School Bond. Doing so is an investment in both our community’s students and our community’s economic future.
Lake Oswego’s livability and quality of life rests upon the bedrock of exceptional public education. Excellent public schools are necessary for building and retaining Lake Oswego’s quality workforce, supporting and attracting new businesses, and preparing the next generation of Lake Oswegans for a rapidly-changing economy.
AN INVESTMENT IN SCHOOLS IS AN INVESTMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY.
Voting YES on Measure 3-577 allows the district to move forward with historic plans to provide safe, modern, exceptional classrooms for every student in the district.
Additionally, if Measure 3-577 passes, the state will chip in an additional $4 million, directing more revenue to our local economy.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY DOLLAR SPENT.
As businesses, we understand the importance of monitoring the bottom line. Measure 3-577 would raise $180 million for new schools - and the district’s plan calls for no future tax rate increases upon passage of this bond. Community leaders will continue to provide independent community oversight so that tax dollars will be used only for approved purposes. The measure requires independent performance audits of all bond expenditures.
Please support this investment in Lake Oswego’s economy and vote YES on Measure 3-577.
Endorsed By The Lake Oswego Chamber Of CommerceDebbie Siegel, Kumon Lake Grove, PresidentLiz Hartman, Executive DirectorJay Haladay, Beacon - Board MemberRob LeChevallier, Buckley Law P.C. - Past PresidentChris Schetky, Realtor - Past President
(This information furnished by
Liz Hartman, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce)
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Let’s leave a legacy and invest in future generations.
When we were kids, our parents invested robustly in our education. Here in Lake Oswego, the town went on a school building spree, opening nine brand new schools between 1949 and 1979. Our generation benefited greatly from the education supported by our parents and grandparents. They were committed to our future - and our parents and grandparents appropriately invested in our success and well-being.
Measure 3-577 is our chance to affirm this commitment to the next generation of students. And we’re asking you to join us in paying it forward by voting YES on Measure 3-577.
Whether or not you have children (or grandchildren) in the district, we all benefit from safe, modern, exceptional schools. Investing in our school district supports our local economy, keeps our neighborhoods desirable and supports our housing values.
It is time for our aging buildings to be replaced, renovated, or repaired in order to continue to provide the programs and opportunities that make our district exceptional.
Every dollar we spend on this school bond will betracked by an independent community oversight board. The School District has a great track record, with every project funded by the 2017 Lake Oswego School Bond being delivered on time and on budget.
Leave a Lasting Legacy: Vote Yes on Measure 3-577 for Safe, Modern, Exceptional Schools.
Bob Barman, Former Lake Oswego School District Board MemberLinda Brown, Board Member, Clackamas County Education Service District; Former Lake Oswego School District Board MemberDeborah Lopardo, Former Lake Oswego School DistrictBoard MemberRobert Ervin, Uplands Neighborhood Association MemberKathy Gordon, Community OrganizerJeff Gudman, Former Lake Oswego City CouncilorJay Haladay, Beacon DeveloperBill Korach, Retired LOSD Superintendent, Retired Lake Oswego High School TeacherRicky Korach, Retired LOSD English Department ChairRobert LeChevallier, Buckley Law P.C.Cay BorduinThomas EvartMary Ann and Jay Lewis
(This information furnished by
Mark Birge, Building Great Lake Oswego Schools)
18
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of
any statements made in the argument.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Community leaders across local, regional, and state government:
Vote YES on Measure 3-577 for safe, modern, exceptional Lake Oswego Schools.
As elected officials who represent Lake Oswego’s teachers, students, and families at multiple levels of government, we hear from our constituents every day how public education positively impacts our economy, our neighborhoods, and our quality of life.
A vote to pass the Lake Oswego School Bond is a vote to ensure our community honors its commitment to invest in public schools, the cornerstone of successful, prosperous, equitable communities. It’s a vote to invest in Lake Oswego’s families, Lake Oswego’s neighborhoods, and Lake Oswego’s future. We must continue to ensure that Lake Oswego School District can continue to provide a fulfilling, modern education for every student in the district.
As students return to campus this fall, we have a historicopportunity to ensure that current and future generation of students attend safe, modern, exceptional schools. A YES vote on Measure 3-577 will ensure that Lake Oswego continues to prepare for this future, and that we will continue to strive to deliver an excellent education to every Lake Oswego student.
Join us in voting YES to Build Great Lake Oswego
Schools.
State Senator Rob WagnerState Representative Andrea SalinasState Representative Rachel PrusakMetro Councilor Christine LewisClackamas County Commissioner Sonya FischerClackamas County Commissioner Martha SchraderLake Oswego Mayor Joe BuckLake Oswego Councilor Jackie ManzLake Oswego Councilor Massene MboupLake Oswego Councilor Aaron RapfLake Oswego Councilor John WendlandClackamas County Democrats Chair Charles GaliaPortland Community College Board Member LaurieCremona WagnerFormer LOSD Board Member Linda BrownFormer LOSD Board Member Bob BarmanFormer LOSD Board Deborah Lopardo
(This information furnished by
John Wallin, Building Great Lake Oswego Schools)
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Sustainability, Energy Efficiency at the heart of theLake Oswego School Bond
In 2021, the Lake Oswego School Board included“sustainability” as one of the four priorities of the district’sfive-year strategic plan. This strategic plan guided theidentification and selection of projects to be funded by the 2021 School Bond. Measure 3-577 will allow the district to prioritize sustainable building practices and facility operations by:
● Constructing resilient and highly efficient buildings that strive to use sustainable materials and minimize carbon footprint, ● Reducing greenhouse gas emissions ● Reducing waste and water usage as well as reducing natural gas consumption ● Encouraging alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles ● Promoting high efficiency building systems ● Applying sustainable practices in schools and district operations and using buildings as teaching tools by displaying sustainable features.
The district collaborated with many community leaders,including the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network on the2017 bond. These and other environmental advocatesserved on committees that identified community needs and provided input on the value of sustainability attributes of new and upgraded facilities. Lakeridge Middle School is a testament to the benefits of sustainable design. The upcoming Bond measure will give us an opportunity to continue with smart, forward-looking sustainable features for additional facilities.
If the new bond passes, our new and improved buildingswill be energy efficient and seismically resilient. They will be safe, comfortable, and technologically innovative, serving the needs of our students and our community for decades to come.
Measure 3-577 isn’t just an opportunity to affirm ourcommitment to our students’ education. It’s a chance toaffirm our commitment to our students’ future for ahospitable planet.
Join Lake Oswego environmental advocates.Vote YES on Measure 3-577.
Lake Oswego Sustainability Network:Dorothy AtwoodTom AtwoodDuke CastleJan CastleLisa AdattoMary Ratcliff
Stephanie Wagner, Friends of Tryon CreekLarry Zurcher, Sustainability Teacher on Special AssignmentBreck Foster, LOHS Social Studies Teacher, Green Team Club AdvisorElizabeth Welsh, Ph.D., Lake Oswego HS Parent
(This information furnished by
Courtney A. Clements, Building Great Lake Oswego Schools
& Lake Oswego Sustainability Network)
19
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by
Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth
of any statements made in the argument.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
A message from the Lake Oswego School Board:Vote YES for Safe, Modern, Exceptional Schools.
In 2017 Lake Oswego Voters overwhelmingly voted to pass a bond to begin our 3 phase plan to update, upgrade and replace schools across our district. In the past four years, we’ve delivered our projects on time and on budget. Now, we ask you to support the second phase, which continues the work started four years ago and provides funding for crucial safety and security improvements while building two brand new schools.
Over the course of the past two years, the Lake Oswego School District has engaged in an intensive commmunity listening session and identified the exact set of investments necessary to ensure that our district continues to offer an excellent education to all of Lake Oswego’s students.
We are so proud of Lake Oswego’s schools - our educators and students continue to flourish, innovate, and adapt through these difficult and unprecedented times. This school bond represents our opportunity to ensure that Lake Oswego’s students and educators are given the resources necessary to continue to set statewide standards for excellence and achievement.
Lake Oswego students and staff deserve safe, modern, and exceptional schools - and Measure 3-577 represents our opportunity to deliver these classrooms to our students and our community.
Please vote YES on 3-577 for safe, modern, exceptional schools.
The 2021-2022 Lake Oswego School BoardKirsten Aird, ChairNeelam Gupta, Vice ChairBrian BillsLiz HartmanJohn WallinAlicia Li, Student RepresentativeEmily Zou, Student Representative
(This information furnished by
Kirsten Aird, Lake Oswego School Board)
20
Not all measures in this Voters’
Pamphlet will be on your ballot.
Your residence address determines
the districts for which you may vote.
Your official ballot will contain the issues
which apply to your residence.
Measure filings appear in the order
which they will appear on the ballot, as
instructed by the Secretary of State.
Arguments in favor/opposition to a
measure appear in order in which each
type of argument was received at the
County Elections Division.
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Dist.Measure 34-308
Referred to the People by the Board
AUTHORIZES GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
FOR EMERGENCY SERVICE INVESTMENTS
QUESTION: Shall TVF&R issue general obligation bonds to fund fire station improvements, replacement
vehicles, training center upgrades, and land?
If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to the limits of sections 11 and 11b, Article XI of the Oregon
Constitution.
SUMMARY: This measure authorizes Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) to issue up to $122 million in bonds to finance capital costs, including: • Replacement of response vehicles reaching the end of their useable life. • fire station improvements. • Rebuilding the King City fire station • Relocating the Aloha fire station. • Safety upgrades for TVF&R’s training center where responders are trained in fire suppression, emergency medical care, technical rescue, hazardous material response, and other emergency skills. • Land for future construction of fire stations in growth areas. • Site improvements, equipment, and bond issuance costs.
Bonds would mature over not more than 15 years and may be issued in series. Due to declining debt service on existing bonds, the measure will not increase TVF&R’s bond tax rate above the current rate of $0.1415 per $1,000 AV unless assessed property values decline. For property assessed at $300,000 about the average in TVF&R’s service area, the bond cost is estimated to be $42.45 per year or $3.54 per month. Actual rates may vary based on interest rates and changes in assessed
value.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) provides fire
suppression, emergency medical care, technical rescue,
water rescue, hazardous material response, and fire
prevention services to the cities of Beaverton, Durham,
King City, Newberg, North Plains, Rivergrove, Sherwood,
Tigard, Tualatin, West Linn and Wilsonville, as well as
unincorporated portions of Washington, Clackamas,
Yamhill and Multnomah counties.
What does this measure call for?
Voters are being asked whether TVF&R should issue
$122 million in general obligation bonds to:
● Replace response vehicles as they reach the end
of their useable life, including fire engines, trucks,
and medical vehicles used throughout the District.
● Fund fire station improvements including
seismic upgrades, security features, expansions,
or living quarter modifications at 10 of 29 stations
to ensure firefighters and paramedics remain
prepared to respond to fires, medical emergencies,
rescues, and disasters.
● Rebuild the King City fire station at the existing
location. (A new station is more cost effective than
retrofitting the existing structure.)
● Relocate the Aloha station to a more central
location to improve local and regional response.
● Fund safety upgrades for TVF&R’s training center
where responders practice fire suppression,
emergency medical care, technical rescue,
hazardous material response, and other
emergency skills.
● Purchase land for future fire stations in areas
where growth is expected to occur.
Will property tax rates increase if this measure is
approved?
Because the tax rate on existing bonds is scheduled
to decline, TVF&R’s total tax rate is not expected to
increase.
How much will the bonds cost?
The total principal amount of bonds authorized by this
measure cannot exceed $122 million. For property
assessed at $300,000, about the average in TVF&R’s
service area, the estimated cost of the bonds would
continue to be about $42.45 per year or $3.54 per
month. Actual costs may vary. Assessed value is
currently between 36-38% lower than market value.
When would bonds be issued?
TVF&R expects to issue bonds in multiple series to
fund identified projects. Bonds would be repaid over a
maximum of 15 years from their issue date.
What is the current total tax rate for TVF&R?
The total tax rate for TVF&R is $2.1167 per $1000
assessed valuation, which includes:
$1.5252 Permanent Rate $0.45 Local Option Levy $0.1415 General Obligation Bond
Submitted by:
Tim Collier Chief Financial Officer
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by the county.
NO ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION OF THIS MEASURE WERE FILED 21
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
TVF&R BOARD SUPPORTS BOND MEASURE
We have been elected by you to provide oversight of Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue.We have referred a bond measure to the ballot for these reasons:
1. This is not a new tax. If approved, new bonds issued will replace debt that is being paid off from old bonds. This means TVF&R’s total tax rate will not increase.
2. We know through decades of research that your top priority for TVF&R is to provide fast and effective emergency response. By issuing bonds, we will be able to purchase response vehicles, fund fire station improvements, rebuild fire stations, and acquire land for the future so that we can properly serve our community.
3. We feel that TVF&R has a solid track record of keeping promises. The last time we issued bonds was in 2006. Since then, TVF&R has fulfilled the commitments made to you, our investors.
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of
any statements made in the argument.
(This information furnished by
Rocky Hanes, Tualatin Valley Firefighters, IAFF Local 1660)
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Tualatin Valley Firefighters support Measure 34-308 because it allows for investments in things that we need to provide professional and reliable service toour community.
It is an honor to serve the people living in our service area, and we are grateful for the support you have shown us in the past.
If Measure 34-308 passes, it would provide four significant benefits. ● It provides funding to replace fire engines, ladder trucks, and other vehicles that have reached the end of their useable life. ● It will allow us to make improvements at ten of our fire stations and rebuild two stations. ● It would pay for safety upgrades to our training facility. It is vital that our firefighters and paramedics constantly train so we have the skills needed when real emergencies occur. ● Lastly, we will be able to acquire land for future fire stations in places where we know there will be development.
For these reasons, Tualatin Valley Firefighters urge a YES vote on Measure 34-308.
In service,Rocky Hanes, PresidentTualatin Valley FirefightersIAFF Local 1660
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Dist.Measure 34-308
(This information furnished by Randy Lauer, Tualatin Valley
Fire & Rescue Board of Directors)
22
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Your Investments in TVF&R are Used Wisely
We are citizen volunteers who participate in TVF&R’s annual budget process. We are acutely aware that our input can impact your property tax bill, and we understand that you want the cost of service to be as value-driven as possible.
We also understand that when something bad happens to you or your family, you want TVF&R’s firefighters and paramedics to respond quickly.
As Budget Committee members, our job is to balance these competing interests. We must also keep a keen eye on the fire district’s accounting and budget priorities.
We feel TVF&R uses your tax dollars wisely. We also feel they have the proper financial controls in place and adhere to the strictest fiscal practices, including rigorous annual audits. TVF&R has a Aaa bond rating which is the highest credit rating possible.Because of their size, they’re also able to achieve cost savings through economies of scale and reduced administrative overhead.
Our opinion of Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue’s financial practices is shared by the Government Financial Officers Association who has awarded the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to TVF&R every year for the past three decades. We feel thatTVF&R will use bond monies wisely to invest in stations, equipment, and land for stable emergency services now and in the future.
TVF&R Budget CommitteeAngie FongPaul LeavyMichael MudrowMichael Smith
The printing of arguments does not constitute an endorsement by Clackamas County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of
any statements made in the argument.
(This information furnished by Maxine Dexter)
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
Community Leaders Support TVF&R Bond Measure
Most of us have worked years -even decades- on issues that affect the livability and prosperity of our communities. We have high expectations of our public agencies. We want our constituents to feel confident in the service they’ll receive if they must call 911.
Measure 34-308 will allow Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue to issue bonds to pay for fire engines, trucks, fire station improvements, and land for future fire stations. This is vital for a strong public safety system that serves our residents and businesses.
We hope you join us in voting yes on Measure 34-308.
Kate Lieber, State Senate District 14Wlnsvey Campos, District 28 Representative ·Maxine Dexter, District 33 RepresentativeDacia Grayber, District 35 RepresentativeLisa Reynolds, District 36 RepresentativeRachel Prusak, District 37 RepresentativeKathryn Harrington, Chair, Washington County Board of CommissionersPam Treece, Washington County CommissionerPaul Savas, Clackamas County CommissionerSonya Fischer, Clackamas County CommissionerMarc San Soucie, Beaverton City CouncilorMark Fagin, Beaverton City CouncilorAllison Tivnon, Beaverton City CouncilorJason Snider, Mayor of TigardHeidi Lueb, Tigard City CouncilorJohn Goodhouse, Tigard City CouncilorLiz Newton, Tigard City CouncilorRobert “Butch” Kindel, North Plains City Councilor
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Dist.Measure 34-308
(This information furnished by
Angie Fong, TVF&R Budget Committee)
23
24
Voting Instructions
Vote your Official Ballot
Locate the candidate or measure response (Yes or No) of your choice for each
contest. To vote, you must completely darken the rectangle to the left of your choice
with black or blue ink. [Figure 1]
To vote for a candidate whose name does not appear on the Official Ballot, completely
darken the rectangle to the left of the blank Write-in line provided for the office and fill in the
blank line with the full name of the person you wish to vote for. [Figure 2]
Remember: If you vote for more than the number of candidates allowed for an office,
or you vote both Yes and No on a measure, it is called an overvote, and your vote for
that candidate or measure will not count. [Figure 3]
You are not required to vote on everything. Your ballot will still be counted as cast
and your votes for other contests will be counted.
Review your Official Ballot
Ensure you have correctly marked your choice for each contest. Your official
ballot contains contests printed on both front and back. Remember to review
both sides!
If you lose your ballot, make an error on it, or spoil it in any way,
contact the Clackamas County Elections Division at 503.655.8510 to request a
replacement ballot.
Return your Official Ballot
Place your voted Official Ballot in the envelope and sign the voters' statement. If you forget
the secrecy sleeve - it’s not a problem.
Remember: Read and sign the Voter’s Statement on the Return Ballot Envelope.
Your ballot cannot be counted if the Return Identification Envelope is not signed.
By Mail: Mail it as soon as possible; it must arrive at Clackamas County Elections Divison no
later than 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2, 2021. Remember, the postmark does not count!
In Person: Deliver the signed and sealed Return Ballot Envelope to any official
ballot drop site no later than 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2, 2021.
Do you have questions, or need assistance voting?
Please call the Elections Division at 503.655.8510.