HomeMy WebLinkAboutG-624 Myers 12-18-2023 Current Planning Public Comments and Testimony
Please fill out the form, below,to submit written comments on a pending land use application or an appeal
of a tree removal request.All written comments and materials are due by the deadline listed on the Notice.
Written submittals received by the deadline will be entered into the public record of file and will be
considered by the decision body. Contact the staff coordinator listed on the Notice if you have questions.
Case Number* Please see Notice for correct LU or tree appeal number.
LU 23-0002/AP 23-04:A request for an RP District(wetland) Unavoidable Crossing
to Install a Sewer Line and Serial Lot Line Adjustments.
If you do not see your case here the comment period is not open. Please check back
later.
Case Number- LU 23-0002/AP 23-04:A request for an RP District(wetland) Unavoidable Crossing
Verification* to Install a Sewer Line and Serial Lot Line Adjustments.
Please re-select your case number to ensure it routes to the appropriate case.
First Name* Kate
Last Name* Myers
Address Street Address
5750 Carman Drive
Address Line 2
City State/Province/Region
Lake Oswego Oregon
Postal/Zip Code
97035
Email* katemyers2011@gmail.com
Stance:* r Support
C' Opposition
r Neither for nor against
Please type your comments below,or you may upload a PDF of your comments. If you have other media types, please
contact planning@lakeoswego.city to coordinate its addition to the public record.
Comments As a resident, I have found the order in which LU 23-0002 progressed to be
somewhat confusing.To aid in my own understanding, I've created a chronological
timeline that incorporates documents and events as well as their significance. I
submit this to the DRC so that it may be helpful to committee members as well.
File Upload Timeline of Correspondence and 1 attachment.pdf 794.8KB
PDF format only
Date Content Document Significance
2013 Plan created that includes future line in
Waluga Park - W and Environmental
Stewardship direction: "New wastewater
infrastructure will be sited outside of stream
corridors, wetlands, and significant tree
groves whenever feasible." (Table 2.4, Ref No.
4.13, page 2-18)
2013 Waste Water
Master Plan
WMP shows "Needs Policy" but none has been
developed.
10/23/2014
(revised
10/28/2014)
The decision making policy tree for when
Sewer Connection is required of a new
dwelling. Much of it surronds the 300' mark.
"LOC 38.18.305(4)’s obligation to connect to
sewer is not applicable if a sewer line is “not
available” (which I conclude means the
property is more than 300 ft. from the
sewer)," or not "legally or physically available"
(aka more than 300' away. "When the sewer
is beyond 300' area(sic), there is no obilgation
to connect."
Memo to Todd
Knepper, Engineering
Program Supervisor,
From Evan Boone,
Deputy City Attorney
(Last half of LFNA
Attachment 13)
This memo outlines the City's broad ability to work
with people who need to continue using septic
systems due to the prohibitive cost of extending the
City sewer line. It also outlines the hard stop that
occurs once the property is over 300' away from the
existing sewer line and does not make that policy
subjective to the City's opinion.
3/30/2021 The City Attorney, Evan Boone, responds to
the question: "May a property owner
bifurcate a building permit application
process on a lot that
has a Sensitive Lands Overlay District, in order
to avoid the applicability of the Utility
Standard (LOC
50.06.008) to bring sewer to the site even
though it is more than 300 ft. away from the
existing sewer main?
Answer: Yes. An applicant can first obtain a
delineation of the resource (minor
development), and then submit a building
permit application for construction of a
dwelling located outside of the delineated
resource. By doing so, review of the dwelling
is not subject to the Utility Standard’s
requirement to bring sewer to the site
regardless of distance, but is then only
required to extend sewer if required by LOC
38.04.305"
Memo to Todd
Knepper, Engineering
Program Supervisor,
and Jessica
Numanoglu, Planning
Manager, from Evan
Boone, City Attorney
Pro Tem
(Attachment 13)
The memo says that if the development is a
ministerial development the property that is not
subject to the Utility Standard, the it is "not subject to
the requirement to bring sewer to the site even if
over 300 ft away." This memo does not says, it
MIGHT be subject, or that the City may decide to
require it anyway. It says that based on policy, it is
NOT reqjuired. *This was the memo, previously fully
redacted by Evan Boone. Additionally, LOC 38.04.305
does not exist.
7/9/2021 Applicant submits annexation application
including request to used septic when sewer
access is not available. City basically says, we
don't want to honor that policy because it
could hinder other properties in the vicinity
from gaining access to sewer.
Letter from Paul
Espe, Associate
Planner to Ed
Brockman, Land
Broker
The City has decided to forego its standing, Dolan
compliant, policy of allowing properties greater than
300' away from sewer to use septic systems. What
this memo is alluding to is that these lots are more
likely to be able to do this work because the costs
may be absorbed into the selling prices while
individual homeowners who might want to connect,
likely can't because they can't bear the cost as a single
individual. This illustrates the inequitable burden
being placed on the few homes that will fall in this
Zone of Benefit and also how the City has committed
to this land use outcome before any land use process
was every initiated.
8/10/2021 Memo about annexation of three lots off
Kimball and Baliene. Directs Paul Espe that
sewer WILL come from West Waluga Park
Memo from Todd
Knepper to Paul Espe
(LFNA Response
Attachment 1)
City proceeding with planning for sewer thru park
without going through Land Use process for such a
decision.
8/16/2021 Letter to Ed
Brockman from Paul
Espe (Attachment 12)
9/15/2021 City Engineering Program Supervisor, Todd
Knepper telling Ivan Anderholm, Director of
LO Parks and Rec, that sewer for proposed
annexation properties WILL go through West
Walug Park.
Email from Todd
Knepper to Ivan
Anderholm (LFNA
Response
Attachment 2)
City proceeding with planning for sewer thru park
without going through Land Use process for such a
decision.
10/11/2021 Email between Todd Knepper and Ivan
Anderholm about expected engagement with
land broker, Ed Brockman, regarding
"mapping work they are going to need for
sewer alignment that will be constructed
through Waluga Park"
Email from Ivan
Anderholm to Todd
Knepper (LFNA
Response
Attachment 3)
City and Applicant's agent proceeding with sewer
mapping thru the park without going through the
Land Use process for such a decision.
10/13/2021 A Email from Todd Knepper indicating that "it
would be better to have a midpoint manhole
within the park." This is because the City's
standard run is 500' and would not
accommodate the 540' suggested by Eric
Evans, Engineering Manager of Emerio Design
to avoid "an access road through a wetland".
Email from Todd
Knepper to Phil
Lawrence and Ivan
Anderholm in
response to an email
from Eric Evans (LFNA
Response
Attachment 4)
Demonstrates that the City is not considering the
avoidance of the wetland at all, that the engineering
manager expects there will be a road through the
wetland, and that the City wants a manhole midspan
which will create a continued need for maintenance
access - creating long-term impact on that stretch of
wetland.
10/13/2021 B Ivan clearly identifies that "the issue we have
from the park perspective is that the original
alignment would have required significant
tree removal and would have placed a
manhole in the wetland. There is really no
vehicular access to the manholes, wetland
unless there was a road built, not ideal for the
natural resource.
Email from Ivan
Anderholm to Todd
Knepper (LFNA
Response
Attachment 5)
Shows that the City knows that this is not good for the
wetlands, will require a road and create significant
tree removal. Demonstrates that the City is not
considering the avoidance and proceeding with
planning for sewer thru park without going through
Land Use process for such a decision.
10/13/2021 C The portion of the memo regarding the need
for a manhole is redacted by the City Deputy
Attorney, Evan Boone, citing attorney-client
privilege. The same information is not
redacted in other email chains.
Email from Todd
Knepper to Ivan
Anderholm (LFNA
Response
Attachment 6)
This links to a state website which discusses when
public entites may redact documents. ORS 192.355
and 192.345 list the exemptions from disclosure. The
only one that seems to apply is that "Records of a
public body pertaining to litigation to which the public
body is a party if the complaint has been filed, or if
the complaint has not been filed, if the public body
shows that such litigation is reasonably likely to
occur." This seems extremely presumptive since none
of the organizations appealing have steady income
sources with which to pay for attorneys to litigate and
since that matter had only just begun the appeal
process and the outcome was not yet known.
https://www.doj.state.or.us/oregon-department-of-
justice/public-records/attorney-generals-public-
records-and-meetings-manual/i-public-records/
10/14/2021 A Phil Lawrence reports that he has visited the
site, feels the manhole in the wetlands works
best and that a road will not be needed, but a
pathway will be necessary, or an obtained
easement from 15776 Inverurie
Email from Phil
Lawrence to Todd
Knepper and Ivan
Anderholm (LFNA
Response
Attachment 7)
The City is pressing forward with specific plans
without any land use process being observed. Phil
acknowledges that ongoing access will be needed via
pathways or easements to access the proposed
manhole in the middle of the span thru the wetlands.
No one discusses Eric Evans' suggestion of accepting a
540' span to avoid the midspan manhole
demonstraing a lack of any attempt of avoidance or
even reduction of impact.
10/14/2021 B Ivan Anderholm shares the email chain
mentioned above with City staff, Megan Big
John and Jeff Munro.
Email from Ivan
Anderholm to Megan
Big John and Jeff
Munro (LFNA
Response
Attachment 8)
Noticably, no one expresses any concern about how
things are proceeding as a process or as a stewardship
concern. If they did, their responses were not
provided within the scope of the public information
request.
10/15/2021 Todd Knepper suggests a site meeting after
receiving the feedback from Phil on
10/14/2021 A
Email from Todd
Knepper to Phil
Lawrence, Ivan
Anderholm (LFNA
Response
Attachment 9)
The process marches on without any land use process
having been observed.
11/2/2021 A Annexation hearing in front of the City
Council. Paul Espe, (at approx. minute 13)
indicates that the land use process will follow.
City Council Meeting
on 11/2/2021 on
Ordinance 2874
The City Council is told that this annexation is not the
land use process related to the sewer.
11/2/2023 B Voters pass Measure 3-568 which ammends
and becomes Chapter X of the City Charter
Voters Pamplet
(submitted in F-017)
The measure passed on the same day as the
annexation was brought before the Council. Council
never asked about the impact of the measure on the
proposed annexation; the question was not
addressed by staff.
11/3/2021 Ed Brockman reaches out to Scot Siegel with a
suggestion that will "appease the concerns of
the Council" which is that they would be very
satisfied with 2-3 homes on septic because
this would b "much faster" and "avoid the
expenses involved in the other plan and much
less invasive", even though they could
theoretically get 9-10 units there with middle
housing if they did the sewer.
From Ed Brockman to
Scot Siegel (Part of
LFNA Reponse
Attachment 11)
The applicant is trying to offer a solution that protects
the wetlands. The applicant had received a June
email from Scot which made them think septic was an
option. They then closed on the property based on
that information and are now being told the City has
changed its policy for this specific property.
11/12/2021 City rejects 3 houses with septic and cautions
that applying for 9-10 units would no longer
be a ministerial development, but would
become a minor development which would
then trigger the requirement to extend the
sewer. Scot also emphasizes that "(wetland)
protected areas" are exempted from middle
housing mandates
Memo from Scott
Siegel to Applicant
(LFNA Attachment
11)
The City acknowledges that standards have changed
with the passing of Oregon House Bill 2001 in 2019.
However, the City fails to recognize the major change
voted in just a little over a week before through
Measure 3-568 which ammended Chapter X and
obviously has impact on this sewer line requirement
through West Waluga Park.
11/24/2021 The applicant had still not signed the
convenant provided to them by the City with
a deadline of 11/23. Ed Brockman wrote to
the City Attorney, Jason Loos, with a proposal
to deed the City 1.4 acres and just build 2
homes with septic on the .62 acre Kimball lot.
The City subsequently responded that they
would only work with the applicant if they are
on City water and sewer service.
Email chain ending
with response from
Paul Espe to Ed
Brockman (LFNA
Response
Attachment 15)
The developer seems extremely reticent to sign the
Convenant necessary to become part of the City and
is looking for any way to avoid the sewer extension,
even going so far as to allow the deadline to sign to
pass.
5/9/2022 A request for approval of annexation is made
for 6059 Seville Ave (also in Lake Forest) in
which extension of sewer is required
Memo to Johanna
Hastay, Senior
Planner from Todd
Knepper (Attachment
14)
This memo indicates the need for the property owner
to connect while demonstrating that the City is not
even sure of the depth of the nearest sewer main to
which the owner is supposed to connect. The reality
is that it is at 7.5' and is likely to be too shallow to
make the gravity slope needed for the extension to
work. Does the City expect the home owner to
correct the incorrect slope of the preceding line at
their own expense? Why is the line too shallow to
function for the remainder of the proposed users -
who approved it and why?
11/17/2023 City clarifies questions from neighbor FOIA
request.
Memo from Evan
Boone to Josh Henle
(attached)
City confirms no creation of an Environmental
Stewardship Plan for wastewater infrastructure and
wetlands (WMP Table 2.4, Ref No. 4.13) has been
created
12/15/2023 The Convenant required by the City to be
signed by the applicant is included in the
Applicants's response. The terms of the
convenant require the applicant to extend the
sewer and threaten legal action and
attorney's fees if they do not complete this
portion of the sewer.
Response submitted
by Applicant's
attorney Ezra
Hammer
This convenant explains why the applicant failed to
include any wetland avoidance alternatives in their
application. The City has held the applicant to a
standard that is virtually unheard of in recent
annexations. In the absence of the City's willingness
to follow its own policies, the end result is basically a
strong arm tactic. The only option given to the
builder was comply with our excessive demand or you
will be left with an unbuildable piece of land. This is
not the type of problem solving one expects from the
City nor from the developers who want to work here.
*Though the Covenant was executed, the version
presented in the Appliant's reponse is not signed.
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
503-635-0225 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
November 17, 2023
Mr. John Henle via email only: josh.henle@gmail.com
15965 Inverurie Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Re: Public Records Request [ID #62981]
Dear Mr. Henle:
You submitted the following request for public records electronically on November 16, 2023, at 10:18
am. I spoke with you by telephone to clarify the scope of the request, and confirmed by email at 4:34
pm (in italics), below. I also stated:
This email acknowledges your request and that, to the extent records are identified within the
scope as we are clarifying, the City is the custodian of the record. At this time we are still
clarifying the scope of the request, so the time for response under ORS 192.329(5) for
production of the records has not commenced.
You replied by email at 4:45 pm and the time for response re-started. I am sending the letter to you by
email at approximately 6:15 pm today, recognizing that you have a need for the results of the public
records request for a Monday evening land use proceeding.
1. Original Request: All Environmental Stewardship policies supporting the Staff's recommendation
on LU 23-0002, with an emphasis on wastewater infrastructure development on wetlands. I
have read the Report and did not see specific policies referenced, other than denoting that it is
considered a wetland and references to 50.05.010 SENSITIVE LANDS OVERLAY DISTRICTS, but
the rules reference city manager approval but not a policy.
CAO Clarification: You say that the Wastewater Master Plan and Update identified a need for a
future policy to fill in a gap in policies. You will send me a screenshot, so I can see if there has, in
fact, been a policy adopted to that end.
//
//
Page 2 of 4
503-635-0225 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Henle Response / Clarification of Request:
CITY RESPONSE: No public record responsive to this request exists. (No additional policy has
been adopted.)
2. Original Request: 2) All correspondence surrounding Clackamas County Official Records
(Clackamas County recording #2022-011231) and Lake Oswego City correspondence not made
available in the public file obligating the public sewer main to be constructed to the upstream
boundary of each of the subject properties prior to issuance of a building permit for each home.
This includes the certain memorandum dated March 30, 2021 from Evan Boone, City Attorney
Pro Tem to Todd Knepper, Engineering Program Supervisor.
CAO Clarification: You are really looking for communications at the time of annexation that led
to the annexation condition that any development on the property connect to the city sewer line
(even if the property is more than 300 ft. from a sewer line, which if the property were in the City
already, it would not have to do … assuming that an alternative sewer system, e.g., septic, were
possible).
The requirement for connection to the upstream boundary of the property is not really what you
are looking for. (If it were, see now LOC 50.06.008.3.b.ii(1)[
https://www.codepublishing.com/OR/LakeOswego/?LakeOswego50/LakeOswego5006008.html
]
Page 3 of 4
503-635-0225 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
You have identified as part of that communication a memo from me to the Engineering Dept. I
will redact privileged communication, e.g., attorney/client communication. We will go from
there, once the material has been provided.
CITY RESPONSE: Your request for public records references that this is related to a pending land
use matter, LU 23-0002, which will have its initial evidentiary hearing before the Development
Review Commission on November 20, 2023 (Monday). Being sensitive to your need for a
response sooner than otherwise permitted by the Oregon Public Records Law, e.g., 15 business
days after receipt of the request for public records (ORS 192.329, 192.324), a request was made
to the planner that handled the annexation (from which the referenced recorded covenant
related) and to the Parks director for “correspondence”; e.g., letters or emails, was made that
related to “obligating the public sewer main to be constructed.”
I also include with the scope of “correspondence” internal staff memos from one staff member
to the other because the contents could just as well been included in a letter or email as in a
memo. Additionally, in this same vein, your request seeks a copy of a memorandum from
myself to Todd Knepper, Engineering Dept., dated March 30, 2021, so that has been included in
the materials provided, as well as “correspondence” that relates to the memorandum.
I do not include any correspondence posted and available online at:
• LU 23-0002: https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/planning/lu-23-0002ap-23-04-request-rp-
district-wetland-unavoidable-crossing-install-sewer-line-and ; see Public Record of File.
• AN 21-0003: https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/citycouncil/21-0003-three-lots-southeast-
corner-kimball-and-baleine-streets ; See Public Records Folder.
I am sending to you by separate emails 16 files. I will number each email and flag which email is
the last. Please confirm that you have received all of the numbered emails.
If you wish to have the search expanded to include additional persons, or to have a computer
search based on specified search terms, please advise of the specific persons and/or search
terms, so an estimate of the costs of the search can be provided to you, and a deposit posted
per ORS 192.329(3). Then, upon receipt of the deposit, the search would be made.
The amount of time incurred to assemble the files and review has exceeded $25. However, since we did
not require a deposit for the amount of time anticipated in review per ORS 192.324(4), the maximum
fee is $25. Please forward a $25 check to: City Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 369, Lake Oswego, OR 97034.
//
//
Page 4 of 4
503-635-0225 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
If you would like to appeal the portions of the documents that were denied for release by redaction,
pursuant to ORS 192.460, any person denied the right to receive a copy of any public record of a public
body, other than a state agency, may petition the District Attorney’s Office of the county in which the
public body is located. The District Attorney’s Office will review the public record to determine if it may
be withheld from public inspection. For appeals, write to: Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office,
807 Main Street, Room 7, Oregon City, Oregon 97045. This must be done in writing.
Sincerely,
Evan Boone
Deputy City Attorney