Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 2010-06-30 Special
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES June 30, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. on June 30, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder 3. PUBLIC INPUT 3.1 Public Input on Second Look Task Force Report Mayor Hoffman welcomed everyone to the second of the two evening listening sessions. He mentioned that the City has been engaged in this process since the 1970s. He noted the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 2004 that called for protection of Lake Oswego's wooded character and its riparian areas, and the Sensitive Lands Ordinance in 1997/1998. He indicated that the issues involved complying with State law, balancing the protection of private property rights with the protection of the natural resources, recognizing and honoring the commitment in the Comprehensive Plan, and insuring that future generations would appreciate this generation's efforts at stewardship. He mentioned that last night a panel of Lake Oswego citizens presented their perspectives. He reviewed the procedures, testimony time limits, and rules of decorum for the evening that would preserve the Council Chambers as a safe place for public discourse. He commented that the Council's goal was to make people feel comfortable and safe, and to promote an atmosphere of fairness, courtesy, and respect for all differing points of view. • Art Scevola, 1454 Glenmorrie Drive He stated that his land was subject to the Sensitive Lands overlay. He read from a prepared statement. He advocated for delaying or reversing the course of the Council's pre -ordained Sensitive Lands agenda, as that was apparently the overwhelming sentiment of those attending these listening sessions. He recalled a speaker last night who said that he had never heard of the Sensitive Lands program until a couple of weeks ago, but now that he had, he wanted nothing to do with it. He held that this gentleman would be no less outraged than a farmer would be, who grew a crop, only to have the government drive a tractor on to his land and then harvest, load, and drive off with his crop. He argued that that if a private citizen did so, that action would be theft, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under the law. He described the speaker as a `wax paper taxpayer,' a citizen who, when left alone, was an ordinary citizen who did his fair share and behaved civilly. However, once awakened to the government's proposed theft of his property, he understood that the situation was like wax paper in an oven — a problem that could no longer be ignored. He contended that Lake Oswego was filled with wax paper taxpayers whose rights and properties were also being trampled on by an over -reaching and misguided government. He commented that it was no coincidence that Lake Oswego was a dues paying (with tax dollars) member of ICLEI City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13 June 30, 2010 International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives), the largest NGO (non-governmental organization) in the United Nation's sustainability Agenda 21. He asked the Council to remember that its first job was to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens, and not to eliminate or reduce them. He contended that the slippery slope that they found themselves on today was a direct result of individual rights and freedoms either taken away or substantially diminished by regulations from the radical environmentalists in the EPA and the `nanny -state' legislators in the local, state, and federal governments. He contended that this manner of compliance with Metro was nothing more than a disguised effort to empower some at the expense of others, resulting in greater property restrictions without compensation for the latter and wider control and potential for financial reward for the former. He argued that, as taxpayers in a constitutional republic, they could not let that happen. He reiterated that the Council vote on this measure needed to be delayed. He argued that its restrictions and confiscation of property rights resulted in the loss of control and value. If the City enacted this ordinance, then it needed to compensate for the measured loss of value. He urged everyone in the room and the city to read their rights under the Constitution and to see this for what it was. He pointed out that the ultimate remedy for an abuse of power, such as the taking of rights as presented by the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, was voting in November for those who would represent the citizens properly and with the authority and protection of the Constitution that they were sworn to protect and defend. • Carolyne R. Jones, 2818 S Poplar Way She read from a prepared statement. She referenced a statement at a work session last week in the discussion on resource identification that the property owners in the initial identifications done in the early 1990s had had the opportunity to contest their identification. However, most who did contest it did not bring evidence to support an exclusion. She cited a Task Force member's claim that any exclusion would necessarily have to be supported by scientific evidence and expert testimony. She contended that a close examination of the original Metro and City maps clearly suggested that a covert process of exclusion did occur with properties fitting the definition of sensitive lands mysteriously dropping off the list without scientific evidence, expert testimony, or public hearings. She alleged that many of these properties were owned by City staff, Council members, and Commission, Advisory Board, and Task Force members. She cited the exclusion of the property owned by a former City Manager. She indicated that two members of yesterday's citizen panel, possibly four Council members here today, and at least one City staff member present had properties that fit the definition but were not on either the existing or proposed Sensitive Lands designations. She argued that these same lists were being used to take property rights, to harm property values, and to restrict the use of over 1,000 private properties without compensation. She indicated that a list of the excluded properties would be made available to the City soon. She asked, for the purposes of equity and fairness, that, before the Council moved forward, it make transparent whatever process was in effect at the time of these properties' exclusion, and that it make available the scientific evidence and expert testimony to explain why those properties were excluded. She stated her opinion that the creation of the Second Look Task Force and the appointment of its members occurred in a suspicious way. She cited the City Charter's statements setting the duties of the Mayor, noting that the Mayor appointed the members of all City committees, boards, and Commissions at the approval of the Councilors. She pointed out that a staff member, the Director of Planning and Building, chose the Second Look Task Force members, which she saw as a contradiction of the City Charter. She commented that she thought the prohibition of citizen input at the Task Force was a contradiction of Statewide Planning Goal 1. She referenced the reason given as the Task Force City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 June 30, 2010 was a technical advisory committee to the Planning Department, yet the Task Force released its report directly to the City Council. She noted that Statewide Planning Goal required the opportunity for citizen involvement in all phases of the planning process. She argued that when the citizens could not trust leadership and staff to respect citizen rights, and when citizen input was restricted, it followed that a lack of trust would only engender a lack of support for proposed recommendations. • Lou Lauman, 15537 Village Park Court He indicated that, while he has never addressed the Council before, he has followed this entire issue through the Lake Oswego Review and other citizens with whom he has spoken. He pointed out that people lived in their backyards, and not in their front yards. He stated his impression that the Council was trying to create a situation where people could not have patios and decks on their own fee simple property. He described that as draconian and as inappropriate as anything he could imagine. He indicated that, as he watched and read about this issue, he kept wondering why the Council was doing this. He commented that he did not see this happening in other Oregon communities. He characterized hiding behind Metro as a flimsy excuse. He supported the comments on handling the issue through education and environmentally friendly products, such as the sale of lower phosphate washing products. He stated that stepping in and depriving people of the right and pleasure of enjoying their backyard did not make sense to him. He mentioned wondering privately who the Council represented. He urged the Council to bear in mind that the Council members were elected to represent the citizens of Lake Oswego, and not Metro. • Stephanie Wagner, 14494 Uplands Drive She commended the Second Look Task Force for the fantastic job it did in bringing flexibility to the requirements. She mentioned serving as a recorder in the open forum where people shared their views and concerns and the Task Force was looking for possible solutions. She indicated her amazement at how much consideration the Task Force gave to some of those ideas. She stated that her job involved education in natural history and environment. She commented that, notwithstanding the importance of education, she understood the need to set limits for those people who did not want to be educated. She supported the combination of flexibility, education, the City leading by example with its natural spaces, and restrictions for the protection of the quality of life through the protection of their air and water resources. She described the City's view as well balanced and complimented all involved in the process. • Audrey Mattison, 2929 Glen Eagles Road She indicated that she has had an RP designation on her property for 13 years. She observed that the beauty and function of the natural environment that they prized and the homes and yards of the built environment that they treasured have long been on a collision course. She commented that the most promising signs of change have been the growing number of grass-roots efforts in watershed awareness, sustainability practices, invasive species removal, and site restoration. She argued that those efforts, coupled with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update, the CDC draft audit, and the sensitive lands reviews, made this an opportune time to refocus on their shared environmental responsibilities. She argued that the City could no longer assume that the rhetoric of compliance by regulation was sufficient: the City must lead by example. She spoke of fulfilling its responsibilities with watershed - based, achievable goals in the Comprehensive Plan, a clear, concise, and well -organized CDC, community -wide best practices for the preservation and protection of natural resources, and the funding for restoration of degraded public natural areas. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 June 30, 2010 She contended that residents could no longer assume that the regulated 10% of private property owners were solely responsible for the health of the environment: each resident must fulfill his/her responsibilities, use best practices to improve the shared watersheds, improve onsite water retention capabilities, improve habitat by planting native trees and plants, as well as volunteer, contribute, and advocate for the restoration of natural areas. She urged the Council, despite the unresolved policy issues in the Task Force report, to move forward promptly with the recommended code changes in order to insure that the residents with issues today did not have to wait for future Comprehensive or CDC considerations. She commented that the community benefited daily from voluntary stewardship on both public and private lands. She referenced her handout showing how the watershed concept had the potential to coalesce neighbors around the issue of water quality improvement. She mentioned that four neighboring Uplands property owners volunteered to undertake a resource enhancement demonstration project to stabilize and restore a healthy stream function to their shared stream corridor. She explained that the upstream urbanization with an outfall pipe draining 33 developed acres created the erosion. Their hope was to encourage similar projects community wide and to increase voluntary stewardship by all residents. • Larry Latuszek, 1286 Larch Street He indicated that his three-quarter acre property showed 50% green on the Sensitive Lands map. He stated that he was not interested in subdividing his property for development. He expressed his appreciation for the strong views presented last night. He agreed with those who insisted that many people did not know about sensitive lands and its ramifications. He commented that listening to the Task Force last week reminded him of a quote from the Lake Oswego School Superintendent: "There's no right way to do the wrong thing." He observed that the references to `community values' seemed to go back to a legacy made years ago. He used an analogy of all people raising their hands in response to the question of do you want to go to heaven, and dropping them at the follow-up question of who wants to go now. He commented that all community members valued trees, clean air, and the environment, but they wanted the government to pick someone else, or they wanted to live next to a sensitive lands owner for personal benefit while leaving it to the sensitive lands owner to pay the taxes and the insurance and to deal with the maintenance issues. He argued that if the City mandated what private citizens could do on their own land, then its job should include the maintenance, removal, and replanting of trees in Lake Oswego. He stated that he loved living in Lake Oswego in spite of the regulations, and not because of them. He asked how well the regulations have worked so far. He referenced his experience with finding that his new property purchased in 2002 was covered with ivy and invasive plants. It took him the rest of the year to clean it up, which he did on his own incentive in order to accomplish his vision of a woodsy backyard. Finding out about the Sensitive Lands Ordinance and its restrictions was a de -motivator for him in working on his property. He pointed out that the Mayor and the Council were the leadership of the community. He noted that motivational speakers usually said that a leader should lead by example and expect the best of people. He commented that they all knew that the City has not led by example since the Ordinance went into effect. He speculated that the City leadership must have been expecting the worst from people. He suggested putting a moratorium on this punitive ordinance and seriously considering a new approach to meeting community values, one that did not hurt property rights and property owners. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 June 30, 2010 • Bob Eidson, 14825 Rainbow Drive He held that they were faced with two decisions, one negative and one positive. He discussed the negative first. He commented that it was clear that the in imposing the Sensitive Lands Ordinance on a selected community, the City was selecting out a group to use their properties as examples on how to manage sensitive lands. He recalled the testimony by three individuals at a meeting some months ago. A realtor indicated that, based on her 25 years of experience, this ordinance would depreciate property. A builder said that he would bypass any land with sensitive lands as too risky. A property owner reported that all three offers that he has had on his property backed away once they discovered that the City had a Sensitive Lands Ordinance. He discussed the alternative suggested by the Audubon representative yesterday that the City compensate property owners affected by the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, such as paying their property taxes. He argued that that would give the property owners an incentive to turn from a highly negative position to a more positive one. He held that the outcome of this action would be a positive image of Lake Oswego for those coming in, as realtors could say that, while the City had a Sensitive Lands Ordinance, it also compensated property owners for enduring the designation. • Janine Dunphy, 17151 Canal Circle She mentioned that she has been involved in senior issues for over 15 years as a volunteer and a Board member on several Boards and Commissions. She observed that the City Council has spent a lot of money, time, and energy discussing and promoting affordable housing and aging in place through a variety of forums. However, she never heard the Second Look Task Force, City staff, or the Council focus on the impact of these sensitive lands overlays on citizens, including seniors. She referenced the example given last night by a realtor and her client who did not feel that Lake Oswego was an aging -friendly community. She stated that this was a senior issue. She asked the Council to consider the negative effect that these overlays were having on its desire to create a more aging -friendly community. She argued that the focus of the discussions should be on citizens of all ages, and not on the animals and natural resources. She commented that people were the most important component of a prosperous society. She held that Lake Oswego citizens were capable of continuing to protect their individual properties without increased government intervention. She asked why the police presence and the red -roped off areas. She stated that she has never seen the police in such obvious attendance in all the meetings that she has attended over the years. She said that she and others found the police presence offensive. She asked who was protecting whom from what. She wondered whether their presence was an admission by the Council that it knew these recommendations were the wrong thing to do, especially with the sense of urgency. She asked why the rush. She speculated that perhaps the police should be sitting on the people's side and protecting the citizens from the City, the Council vote, and the City staff enforcers, none of whom had overlays on their property. • Priscilla Panichello, 3000 Stonebridge Way She told the story of her family's homestead property in lower Glenmorrie, which has been in her family since before 1950. She described how she and her husband began buying portions of the homestead from the family. She noted that they could not have purchased the properties without breaking up the homestead because it was too much acreage and the taxes were too high on the property as a whole. She indicated that her children wanted to live in Glenmorrie also. She mentioned her willingness a year and a half ago to let the City put a sewer down one side of her property to serve the homes on Stonebridge, even though she already had sewer from an installation 35 years ago. She pointed out that she could have refused to grant the sewer easement but she had been willing to give it. She asked the Council to give the property owners City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 June 30, 2010 some rights so that they could willingly cooperate in a way that they felt comfortable and not have the property taken. • Marcia Kies, 1628 Lake Front Road She stated that she did not have a Sensitive Lands overlay although she has been a realtor in Lake Oswego since 1985. She voiced her concern regarding personal property rights and the Sensitive Lands overlay. She addressed the issue of property value from a realtor's perspective. She distributed a handout showing the sale closing of a property at 950 Cumberland Road for $16,000. She indicated that it had had a number of sale fails, and the purchaser who did buy it found restrictions, mitigations costs, etc., to keep reducing the sale price down from the original $120,000. She recalled being told that the studies conducted found that sensitive lands overlays did not affect a property's value, but, based on her experience with already developed properties, the more restrictions placed on the property, the more the buyer concluded that those restrictions would affect his/her enjoyment of the property, and thus its value. She stated that when prospective buyers came in from outside the community, attracted by the great schools and sense of community, and found out about the restrictions or even the potential for restrictions, they ran or devalued the property. • Gary Buford, 5 Camelot Court, 40+ year resident He clarified that his remarks were not about the sensitive lands but rather about the Mayor, the Council and the City staff. He recalled encouraging the Mayor to be completely truthful in comments made to the public, and not to say just the part that the City wanted the public to know. He referenced a paper, Economic Benefits of Large Patches of Tree Canopy, written by two college professors, one from Reed College and the other from San Francisco State University, which the City staff suggested supported the City's position that trees increased property value. He read several quotes from p.7 of the paper. He noted the conclusion that the price model indicated that increasing the tree canopy in areas with a small tree canopy would increase the sale price but increasing the canopy in heavily treed areas would decrease the price due to concerns over the already high percentage of tree canopy and the potential of blocking highly desirable views. • Daryl Winand, 825 NE Multnomah Blvd, Portland, Governmental Affairs Specialist, Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors (PMAR) He indicated that he was speaking on behalf of the more than 6,400 Association members. He thanked the City staff — Denise Frisbee, Jonna Papafthemiou, and Morgan Holden — for their responsive communications throughout this entire process. He stated that PMAR commended the Council for its adherence to Statewide Planning Goal 1 for citizen involvement. He gave PMAR's recommendation that the Council identify and publish for the benefit of Lake Oswego citizens and the property owners those Task Force recommendations that it would be pursuing, and advise which recommendations it would take as stated or modify in some way. He encouraged the Council to allow public comment for that process before sending any directives to the Planning Commission. He commented that while PMAR appreciated this opportunity for public input, it was impossible for residents, taxpayers, and voters to provide concise input without knowing which Task Force recommendations the Council was supporting or rejecting. • Gary Gipson, 19 EI Greco He recalled receiving notification in 1998 that their property had been designated sensitive lands because a sloped and unusable piece of their land lay within the buffer of the watershed behind City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 June 30, 2010 their house, which lay wholly on Mountain Park community property. He expressed their concern that placing that designation on their title would scare off potential buyers. He told the story of how he and his wife woke up to what the sensitive lands designation entailed. He said that he had been eradicating the weeds between his house and the creek for 18 years. In 2003, Mountain Park notified the City that he had cleared the land in the buffer zone. He recalled that at first, City staff was going to make him replant the area, but, upon finding out that it only involved noxious plants, they dropped the matter with the advice that he no longer clear the land. He indicated that he did so, and now the whole creek bed was a mass of ivy, blackberries, poison oak, etc. He commented that, being aware of the negative aspects of the designation, they took notice of the damage that could occur to property owners with larger portions of affected land. He stated that they were sympathetic to Lake Oswego Stewards and others adamant in combating the overlays. He recalled meeting with Mayor Hoffman to discuss concerns regarding several matters before the Council that they believed were economically detrimental to Lake Oswego residents. He indicated that he specifically suggested that a court could rule the City liable to sensitive'lands property owners for the devaluation of their lands, and thus, expose the City to considerable financial obligation. He reported that the Mayor informed them that the designations were made by an unbiased professional using commonly accepted criteria, and therefore, were not arbitrary or capricious. He commented that, since that meeting, they have read of allegations that certain properties that appeared to meet the criteria have escaped designation. He noted that the innuendo was that it was due to the property owners having some connections with the City. He mentioned that they have seen no refutation of these allegations. He referenced Councilor Moncrieff's comment last week that she could not distinguish between her undesignated property and some of her neighbors. He commented that if the Councilors were questioning the criteria, then all the citizens should question it. He mentioned that most citizens still did not understand the reasons behind not designating properties on Oswego Lake or the Willamette River as sensitive lands. He argued that, before the Council vote took place, the individual in charge of designating the overlays needed to provide testimony or an affidavit certifying that she received no coercion from any party regarding the designation of properties, and relate what instructions she received in addition to the designation criteria. He pointed out that she would have to do so when the sensitive lands issue was challenged in a court of law. He contended that one deviation from the criteria, and the designations could obligate the City to everyone negatively affected in the past. He asked the Council to protect their property and their pocketbooks. • Dave Luck, 26 Del Prado He mentioned being struck by the opening remarks at this meeting with the repeated references to everybody feeling safe. He commented that he would be curious to know if the audience members felt unsafe or if the Council members did. He compared it to liberal politicians characterizing the Tea Party movement as an unruly and violent mob. He said that, while he was not a Tea Party member, he saw an interesting corollary here. He remarked that, as much as a large number of people in the city did not like what the Council was doing, and a fair number might not like the Council members personally, he has never heard anybody suggest that the Mayor or the Councilors were unsafe. He cited the Mayor's repeated references to respect. He argued that one of the things coming out of these meetings was the total lack of respect shown to the property owners of the city. He recalled the references by the Task Force to the HAS characterization and the criteria. He mentioned the Mayor's visit to his property, at which time he pointed out to the Mayor that his neighbor's backyard, enclosed by a six-foot fence and covered in lawn and concrete, was City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 June 30, 2010 designated as sensitive lands habitat under the HAS score. He asked that someone explain that to him. He observed that that sort of situation reinforced the idea that the designations were capricious, arbitrary, and done on an aerial photo with someone's felt tip pen. He referenced a comment made by an early speaker that the Task Force brought some flexibility to the process, and the comment made just a bit ago that the Task Force has not brought anything to the process that the Council has acknowledged would become part of anything. He contended that, until the Task Force recommendations translated into real change, the Task Force has not brought anything to the party. • Jonathan Snell, 3250 Upper Drive He commented that it was a good idea to inventory the community's natural resources and to find a way to insure that they continue to provide valuable functions to the community, both today and for the generations to follow, because it was in the community's best interests to do so. He held that the Comprehensive Plan, in expressing the community's values, clearly articulated that. He argued that to roll back tree grove or riparian protections would conflict with the current Comprehensive Plan. He mentioned that he had served on the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) in 1997 during the development of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. He recalled that, at the time, he saw a fundamental irony in that property owners who severely degraded the resources on their land in the past would not experience the encumbrance of an environmental zoning overlay, while the real stewards of the land would do so because of their stewardship. He pointed out that the resources were where they were. He expressed his gratitude to the real land stewards of Lake Oswego and their land management efforts that benefited their neighbors at no cost to the neighbors. He commented that the current great recession has been traced to a dysfunctional dynamic summarized as "privatization of profit and socialization of cost." He contended that the tragedy of the Commons clearly articulated that each person acting in his/her own selfish interest with respect to the degradation of the common natural resources resulted in a downward degrading spiral of natural resource value to the detriment of all. He discussed the potential for an equally dysfunctional inverse of "the privatization of cost and the socialization of benefit." He observed that, taken in isolation, one could consider the Sensitive Lands Ordinance to do this. He contended that it was this grain of truth that some used to fan the flames of fear, noting that it was easier to scare people than to educate them. He argued that a holistic assessment showed that there was a multitude of programs funded by all citizens that supported the healthy functioning of the community's underappreciated greenfrastructure. He stated that there was no solution to the fundamental irony other than by implementing the second part of the concept to protect the best and restore the rest. He stated that the Sensitive Lands Ordinance in its current or proposed form was not the mechanism to achieve this goal. He contended that it required a watershed -based approach to natural resource management. He spoke in support of the Task Force's first recommendation category that the City must lead by example. He referenced the second recommendation in that category regarding a program for the long-term maintenance of sensitive lands on private property. He commented that, while the overlays protected the mapped Sensitive Lands on paper, on the ground they were actively degrading. He cited the unmanaged non-native invasive plant problem assaulting the tree groves, the active erosion of stream channels, and the phosphorous laden sediment going into the streams and lake. He argued that the City needed to develop the skills, techniques, and methodologies to manage its publicly owned natural areas, and then offer those services to willing property owners. He held that the community would respond well to the effort and it would build good will. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 June 30, 2010 Mayor Hoffman invited those reading from prepared statements to submit their written comments to Ms. Christie, if they so desired • Diana Boom, PO Box 328, Lake Oswego She thanked the City for the Second Look Task Force, although she was sorry that it took a mass movement to make it happen. She said that she found the report format clear and understandable with a good coverage of the areas and clear recommendations. She commented that the two points that she saw as most important, after the science;, were property rights and self-regulation versus regulation by government. She indicated that she thought private property rights were very important, yet the community was part of a natural system. She argued that society could not survive without protecting the natural resources and wildlife because they were all dependent upon each other. She commented that self-regulation worked until it did not work. She indicated that it was up to the government to make sure that there were laws and regulations in place to protect natural resources and wildlife. She urged the Council to approve the report and recommendations in order to insure both the survival of nature and the quality of life gained from it. • John Surrett, 1685 Edgecliff Terrace He mentioned that he has lived for 30 years in this house designed by Richard Sundeleaf. He explained that his property had been a featured property in an Oregonian article on the Metro Service District's Natural Garden Delights Tour as a demonstration on how to terrace and take care of very steep slopes. He indicated that he and his wife have participated in this program for the last seven years, which was evidence that they conducted good husbandry of the land. He referenced statements made by Task Force members that several private properties around Lake Oswego were haphazardly overlaid in the 1998/1998 timeframe for inclusion on the original Sensitive Lands Ordinance as having an RC upland tree grove. He noted that staff based that action on the older 1990 aerial maps from Metro. He indicated that Task Force members also pointed out that there was a practice to overlay properties adjacent to overlaid publicly owned areas as continuous swaths of land. He mentioned his surprise earlier this year in finding out that his property was on a list of overlay properties. He noted that the list indicated that he did not receive advance notification by the City. He reviewed the two factors used by staff to determine RC upland tree grove overlays: 1) a property with potential for development, and 2) a property with upland tree groves. He stated that his property at Edgecliff Terrace had no upland tree groves on the upper portion of the property and no potential for development. 60% to 70% of the property was an unbuildable steep cliff. He indicated that the overlay zone was at the bottom of the cliff, beginning at the edge of Oswego Lake. He described it as the final 30 feet of the 200 -foot cliff as measured from the lake shoreline. He stated that there were three to four fir trees in the area, widely dispersed and not forming a grove. In addition, there were no streams on the property, as was true of all properties on Edgecliff Terrace. He described the location of Edgecliff Terrace and its seven homes. He noted that in the early 1990s the City used Metro Open Space/Park levy funds to purchase the South Shore Viewpoint (which Edgecliff Terrace sat next to) from the Ann Shucart estate for more than $2 million. He explained that the overlay for the Viewpoint captured the lower parts of the steep cliff of the Edgecliff Terrace privately owned properties. He indicated that this was a swath taking. He stated that he opposed the City's action and asked that the City remove his properties from the 1997/1998 RC zone because the properties fell outside the overlay criteria. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 June 30, 2010 • Craig Chisholm, 473 Sixth Street He indicated that he understood that the premise of this regulation was to help preserve species. He spoke to examining that premise scientifically in light of recent studies. He framed the question as whether this regulation would help to preserve species, or whether it would end up harming the goal of species preservation. He mentioned that the premise of species preservation by regulation was meeting many challenges today from the scientific community. He said that he would leave the City the copy of an abstract of a recent article from The Journal of Conservation Letters. He read the article's conclusion that the Endangered Species Act's underlying assumption — that once recovery goals for a species were met the species would no longer require management — was a false assumption. He mentioned another statement from the article that 84% of the species listed under the Act were conservation -reliant. In other words, man must step in or the species would die. He stated his conclusion that willing private landowners must undertake the task of species preservation on their lands. He asked how that could happen if the City established disincentives for them to do so. He posed the scientific question of whether the proposed regulations were directly counterproductive to their purpose of saving species. He argued that the City needed to examine its program to see if it was counterproductive to its purpose. • Emma Lee Weibel, 5020 SW Carman Drive She indicated that part of their land was designated sensitive lands. She indicated that this 2.5 - acre parcel has been in her husband's family since 1932. She mentioned finding shards of Chinese pottery in the garden because it was where the Chinese imported laborers camped during the early days of Lake Oswego. She commented that only three groups of people have lived on this parcel: Native Americans, Chinese laborers, and the Weibel family. Consequently, they took their land personally. She mentioned that her husband's taxidermy business conducted on the property since 1933 was one of the oldest businesses in Lake Oswego. She recalled that when they annexed to the City for sewer service, she had thought it only right and fair to do so because if they used City services, then they should pay City taxes. She commented that she did not feel that the City had the same sense of fair play towards them. She pointed out that, with their business, they preferred to maintain a buffer for themselves. She indicated that, although the family had no intention of selling the property, they had always been aware that it was an additional valuable resource available to pay for a catastrophic injury. She compared it to a retirement account. She stated that, under the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, they would no longer have this resource. She explained that, even though the overlay affected only part of their property, it was sufficient to render the rest of the land undevelopable to the capacity that it would have been. She commented that she was a great believer in the Commons, those common infrastructure and service elements in a society for which they should pay. She indicated that she has seldom ever voted against a tax levy because she believed in paying taxes, as nothing was free. She stated that she considered it a patriotic privilege to pay taxes. However, taxpayers did not want to pay for the opportunity to look at lovely spaces. She held that, through its Sensitive Lands program, the City was taking advantage of this reluctance. She indicated that she, her husband, and her son all believed deeply in environmentalism and conservation. However, she did not believe in stealing the value of someone else's land so that she could enjoy looking at it. She called shame on anyone who voted for this and tried to perform this sleight of hand by calling it by another name. She contended that the public unaffected directly by the program knew little about it and did not care because they did not stop to think that these beautiful lands that they wanted to remain undeveloped belonged to someone else who has paid property taxes for years and now bore the City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 June 30, 2010 entire financial burden for the community to have this land. She mentioned that her friends in Portland could scarcely believe that a supposedly enlightened community like Lake Oswego was trying to work such a trick on some of its citizens. She concurred that this action could ruin the real estate market in Lake Oswego because who was to say whose land would be designated next and how valuable would a property remain under a designation. She commented that she thought that infill would be desirable over expanding the city's borders. She contended that the City should ask Oswegans to indicate by a vote whether they wanted these lands maintained in pristine condition, and then they should vote on paying for it. She remarked that it would be bad enough to lose the land through condemnation but that would be better than having it taken. She held that tax incentives were not even a fraction of the value of the land they were losing. She wondered how long it would take the City paying the taxes to make up the property value to the owners. • Shannon Berlant, 14088 Goodall Road She said that, as far as she knew, she had no Sensitive Lands overlay on her property, but she was near a stream. She explained that the properties across the street from her backed on a gully with a stream mapped with a buffer zone on the Metro map. She speculated that if the City expanded sensitive lands, it could affect her. She presented a list of questions that she hoped the Council would seek answers to and weigh the answers carefully in making its decision. She asked what were the backgrounds of the Task Force members (whom she described as unappointed and unelected), and whether any had a business that could benefit from more land use or from environmental regulation. She asked if any Task Force members had a sensitive lands overlay on their property or had been involved in developing or discussing the original 1998 Sensitive Lands program. She asked why there were not an equal number of constitutional advocates and private property advocates on the Task Force. She asked whether the City would continuously update the Sensitive Lands overlay maps. If so, she wondered why, given that neither Metro nor the State required it. She asked who decided to trade trees/tree groves for water or smaller water buffer zones. She asked why the City regulated upland wildlife habitat and tree groves when Metro and the State did not require it. She asked what the documented environmental basis was for the Sensitive Lands program and what specific wildlife was to be protected and why. She asked what the program has quantitatively and qualitatively accomplished between 1998 and 2010, and where the data was. She commented that the City seemed to have accepted that private property owners, such as the Lake Corporation, could manage the water quality and some land use development issues without land use restrictions. She asked why the City did not give the same respect to the private property rights and stewardship of the upland property owners, or consider their recreational space of equal importance as the lakefront owners' recreational space. She observed that Metro's programs dealt with enhancement and restoration of damaged properties. She asked why Lake Oswego's program focused on restricting those who took care of their property. She argued that the program would discourage owners from enhancing their properties. She mentioned that Metro identified Lake Oswego as riparian habitat, Class 2, yet neither the Metro nor the Lake Oswego maps used that classification. Given that the 1994 Comprehensive Plan considered Oswego Lake to be a natural feature, she asked why the City did not include it in the Sensitive Lands program per Metro's Title 3. Since Metro intended Title 3 for significant water areas and flood plains, she asked why the City excluded the Lake Oswego waterfront, Foothills, and the Willamette riverfront property. She referenced the statement in the Task Force report (pp. 12-13) that Metro has not designated Oswego Lake as a significant resource but has identified its primary function as flood storage and flood control. She referenced the Comprehensive Plan policy recommendations to consider City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 June 30, 2010 Oswego Lake eligible for sensitive lands protection and to require development adjacent to the lake to protect the natural and scenic resources. She wondered whether the City would notify the lakefront property owners before implementation if the City put that recommendation into play. She asked why there was so much regulation of the upland areas if 80%+ of the currently protected upland tree groves drained into this lake that was not a significant resource. She suggested packaging the City's current 17 environmental programs together without sensitive lands in order to show compliance with Metro. She suggested letting the community vote on the issue if sensitive lands were a community value. • Jim Wick, 1817 Cedar Court He indicated that his property had an overlay for the creek flowing next to his property. He mentioned that years ago he dammed the creek for a pond, which became a significant part of his home's value. He observed that if the dam ever washed out, then he would lose the pond because the City would not let him replace the dam. He applauded the Council for trying to solve the important issue of water quality, but described the Sensitive Lands program as taking the easy way out. He argued that all these paper designations did not affect the water quality. He mentioned that his stream came out of a storm sewer that drained a large metro area. Its normal very small flow became a raging torrent when it rained that was under washing the banks of his and his neighbor's homes. He observed that planting trees in a designated buffer area would not solve the stream problem because the problem was the storm water surges. He commented that the curbs along the sidewalk on South Shore kept the water from running off the road and infiltrating into the ground; instead the water went into the storm sewer and then into his creek. He contended that the City could help the creek out more by getting the water off the streets and back into its natural drainage than by putting in buffer strips. He indicated that his house lay completely inside the buffer zone. He mentioned that he understood from staff that, if necessary, the City would let him rebuild on the same footprint if his house burned down, but a new property owner who wanted to remodel the home could not build there. He said that what he minded was the City trying to solve a problem with a pretty map and designated buffers and not dealing with the real problem on the ground. • Betty Buford, 5 Camelot Drive She mentioned that she was a 13 -year Master Gardener with training in the backyard habitat program. She commented that she had been amazed that, at the first session of that program, the instructor told them not to go out and intimidate property owners, as the program was about making people want to do things for wildlife. She indicated that this program was extremely successful because people volunteered their backyards. She observed that there were no controls or the City saying that it would take their backyards and make it into something that it wanted. Rather, this was their own choice and it has become a competition between neighborhoods to get the plaque at the end of their street. She recalled when she and her husband met with Denise Frisbee and Jane from Three Rivers a year ago to discuss making Lake Oswego as a whole community (and not just certain properties) a model city for the State of Oregon on sensitive lands issues. She reported that Ms. Frisbee told her that she would love to do that but that the City still needed to control people's properties. She offered to the viewing audience this vision of a model city without the controls. She recalled a comment that Councilor Tierney made last week that if the community was not behind this program, then it would not work. She agreed. She held that the community was not behind this program, and therefore, at this point, it would not work. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 June 30, 2010 Tom Zinser, 17920 SW Westview Road He mentioned that he graduated from the University of Oregon Dental School and that he belonged to the Small Woodlands Association. He described the house he built in the middle of his seven acres off Westview Road as his dream house from childhood. He recounted how he found the property and took a year before selecting his building spot. He recalled that Herb Kruse told him something that at the time he thought was bizarre but that now he understood. Mr. Kruse told him that he needed to watch out because the government would try to take away his good piece of land from him. He described building his house before there were any houses on Cook's Butte or the high school or 1-205. He recalled that his two neighbors that owned large parcels had been concerned about fire danger. He spoke of working with the City to bring water to his land for fire protection as well as electricity. He mentioned that he loved the trees and did not cut them down, even for the road he built that meandered through them. He commented that, during the four years in which he built his house, the area started to develop around him with clear -cutting. He described the Sensitive Lands document (LOC 50.16) as a very restrictive and complicated document. He recalled telling the Planning Commission in 2008 that they needed first to notify people if their land came under LOC 50.16 and second, to make sure that the owners understood what was in the document. He commented that he knew that his 18 neighbors knew nothing about the program. He mentioned that he had asked several City staff whether they have heard of LOC 50.16, and they had not. He emphasized the importance of making sure that everyone understood what LOC 50.16 was (given that it was so restrictive), and of sending affected property owners a proper letter notifying them of their inclusion. • Tom Zinser, Jr., 18224 Bella Terra He said that he grew up on the Westview land. He referenced the comment made earlier about this program being counterproductive. He asked the Council to look at the property on the corner between Stafford Road and Childs Road. He recalled that, six or seven years ago, when the property owner heard about these overlays coming, he clear-cut his property of the beautiful trees down to a grass lawn. He wondered how many other people not under the overlay were thinking of doing the same thing in order to avoid the overlay. He contended that for the City to come back now crying `Save the resources' when it raped the land all around his father's property was criminal. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: O 120 2 10 Ja . Hoffman, Mayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 June 30, 2010 �O � Se r v �:, � ✓, � � t��� S VL9 f 1 POLICY PERSPECT!,W- Conservation-reliant species and the future of conservation J. Michael Scott 1 , Dale D. Goble 2, Aaron M. Haines 3, John A. Wiens 4, & Maile C. Neel 5 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho Cooperative Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1141, USA 2 College of Law, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA 3 Department of Science and Mathematics, Upper Iowa University, Fayette, IA 52142, USA 4 PRBO Conservation Science, 3820 Cypress Drive #11, Petaluma, CA 94954, USA 5 Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture and Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA Correspondence J. Michael Scott, U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho Cooperative Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1141, USA. Tel: (208) 885-6960; fax: (208) 885 -9080.E -mail: -^s^n?Tr^?:!ina.no.en,i Editor : Dr. Andrew Knight Correspondence J. Michael Scott, U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho Cooperative Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1141, USA. Tel: (208) 885-6960: fax: (208) 885 -9080.E -mail: mscomawiaano.eou KEYWORDS Conservation -reliant species - endangered species - Endangered Species Act - extinction • management strategies - priority -setting - recovery plans Species threatened with extinction are the focus of mounting conservation concerns throughout the world. Thirty-seven years after passage of the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 1973, we conclude that the Act's underlying assumr)tion—that once the recovery goals for a species are met it will no longer require continuingmanagement—is false. Even when management actions - succeed in achieving biological recovery goals, maintenance of viable populations of many species will require continuing, species-specific intervention. Such species are "conservation reliant." To assess the scope of this problem, we reviewed all recovery plans for species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. O- L. analysis indicates that 84% of the species listed under the Act are conservation reli nt. These species will require continuing, long-term management investments. If these listed species are representative of the larger number of species thought to be imperiled in the United States and elsewhere, the challenge facing conservation managers will be logistically, economically, and politically overwhelming. Conservation policies will need to be adapted to include ways of prioritizing actions, implementing innovative management approaches, and involving a broader spectrum of society. Received: 31 August 2009; accepted 13 January 2010. My name is Gary Gipson and my wife and I have lived at 19 EI Greco for 25 years. In 1998 we received notification our property had been designated as Sensitive Lands. We later learned the reason for designation was the watershed behind our house which lies wholly on Mountain Park Community Property. Our involvement is because of the buffer. The land involved is on a slope and really not usable. Still, if we had to place the designation on our title, it would scare off some potential buyers who will avoid any properties so designated. In 2003 we had our first exposure to what the designation entailed. For 18 years I had been eradicating the weeds between our house and the creek. Mountain Park notified the city that I had cleared the land in the buffer zone. At first LO Planning was going to make me replant the area. We went through several weeks of the city advising our liability would potentially be in the thousands of dollars. When they found out it was only noxious plants involved, they dropped the matter, advising us not to continue clearing the area. I ceased the activity and now the whole creek bed area is a mass of ivy, blackberries, poison oak, etc. The experience was traumatic and woke us to the sensitive lands issue. Becoming aware of the negative aspects just with our limited involvement has made us take notice of the damage that could occur to those with larger portions of their property affected. We are sympathetic to the LO Stewards and others who are adamant in combating the overlays. Last March we met with Mayor Hoffman to discuss concerns we had regarding several matters before the city council which we believed to be economically detrimental to LO residents. Specifically as to sensitive lands, I suggested a court could rule that the city was liable to sensitive lands property owners for devaluation of their lands thereby exposing LO to a considerable financial obligation. He responded the designations were made by an unbiased professional using commonly accepted criteria and therefore were not arbitrary or capricious. Since that meeting, we have read of allegations that certain properties which appear to meet the criteria have escaped designation, the innuendo being it was due to connections the owners of the properties had with the city. We have seen no repudiation of these allegations. Last week I understood Councilor Moncrieff to say she could not distinguish between her property, which is not designated, and some of her neighbors, which are. If a city councilor has questions regarding the criteria for the designations, we all should. Most of us still do not understand the reasons behind failing to have properties on Oswego Lake or the Willamette River designated as sensitive lands. Before you vote on this matter, the individual who was in charge of the designation of overlays needs to provide you testimony or an affidavit certifying she received no coercion from any party regarding the designation of properties as sensitive lands and also relate what instructions she was given in addition to the criteria for the designations. Almost certainly she is going to have to do so at some point in the future when the sensitive lands issue is challenged in a court of law. One deviation, in designation, could obligate the city to everyone who has been.affected in thpast. Please protect our property and our pocketbooks. Jonathan Snell 3250 Upper June 30, 2010 Sensitive Lands Testimony It is a good idea to inventory our natural resources and find a way to ensure that they continue to provide valuable functions to our community. Not just for us here today, but for the generations to follow. Not because it is mandated by the feds, the state, or Metro; but because it is in our own best community interest. This is clearly articulated in that document which expresses our community values, the comprehensive plan. Any roll back in tree grove or riparian protection would be in conflict with the current Comprehensive Plan. %.SourC7,� cjrr'e I served on the Lake Oswego Natural Resourcesisory Board when the current G Sensitive Lands Ordinance was promulgate�.�!i 997. At that time, I felt an internal dis- chordant tension that I now ref/reurces namental Irony". It is ironic that property owners who severely degraded on their land in the past do not experience the encumberance mental zoning overlay. While real stewards of their lands may experience tance of a zoning overlay as a result of their active stewardship. So be it. `/I express my gratitude to the real land stewards of Lake Oswego, their efforts and land management techniques benefit you, me, and our neighbors, at no cost to us. Our current "Great Recession" has been traced to a dysfunctional financial dynamic summarized by the phrase "Privatization of Profit and Socialization of Cost." The Tragedy of the Commons clearly articulates that, when it comes to our common natural resources of air, water and wildlife; each of us acting in our own selfish interest results in a downward degrading spiral of natural resource value, to the detriment of all. Now there is potential for an equally dysfunctional inverse. That is, "Privatization of Cost and Socialization of Benefit." Taken in isolation, the Sensitive Lands Ordinance could be considered to do this. It is this grain of truth that some have used to fan the flames of fear. Unfortunately, it is much easier to scare people than to educate them. A holistic assessment shows that there is a multitude of programs, funded by all, that supports healthy functioning of our under appreciated "Greenfrastructure." There is no solution to the "Fundamental Irony", other than implementing the second part of the concept, "Protect the Best, Restore the Rest." The Sensitive Lands Ordinance in its current, or proposed form, is not the mechanism to do this. This requires a watershed based approach to natural resource management. 90/ Which brings me to the ,Second Look Task Force recommendations, in particular, the first recommendation, "Leading By Example." This we must do. I would like to draw your attention to Leading By Example recommendation 2., which I quote: "Create, budget for, and implement a program to provide support and incentives for the long-term maintenance of Sensitive Lands on private property and designated private open space." While mapped Sensitive Lands may be "Protected" by a planning zoning overlay, on the ground, they are actively degrading. Our tree groves are plagued by an essentially unmanaged non-native invasive plant problem. Our stream channels are actively eroding, carrying phosphorus laden sediment to our streams and lakes. There are solutions to these problems. We need to develop the skills, techniques and methodologies to manage our publicly owned natural areas, and then offer those services to appropriate willing cooperative private property owners. The community will respond well to such an effort, and it will build goodwill. PORTLAND METROPOLITAN ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 30, 2010 On Second Look Task Force Recommendations Public Input Opportunities Mayor, Councilors, thank you for this opportunity to testify this evening. My name is Daryl Winand. I am the Governmental Affairs Specialists with the Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors, 825 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 1145, Portland, Oregon - PMAR in the acronym. On behalf of the more than 6,400 members of our association, I wish to express our appreciation for the opportunity to speak with you this evening regarding the Second Look Task Force recommendations for changes to the Lake Oswego Sensitive Lands Program. I also wish to thank the Lake Oswego Planning staff, specifically Denise Frisbee, Jonna Papaefthimiou and Morgan Holen for their responsive communication with PMAR throughout this process. PMAR commends Council's efforts to adhere to Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 1 ("Goal 1") for Citizen Involvement. However, in reviewing the published meeting schedule for this effort we are concerned Council has omitted one important step in doing so. PMAR recommends and encourages Council to identify and publish for the benefit of Lake Oswego residents and property owners, those Task Force Report recommendations that it will be pursuing, advise whether the recommendation is being accepted as is or in a modified format, and then allow for additional public comment prior to making a decision and issuing directives to the Planning Commission. We appreciate the City expanding the opportunity for residents to bring before you their concerns and questions, but without some indication from Council as to which Task Force recommendations are supported or rejected, it is difficult—if not impossible—for residents (taxpayers and voters) to provide concise input. We appreciate the Council's consideration of our recommendations and thank you for the opportunity to provide council with our member's concerns. 825 DE 6tultnamah,Sulte 1245; Ndland, OR 97232 ® Main: 503,228,6595 Fax: 503.228.4I10 ivnns,pmar.erg Marcia Kaes From: Tim Hardy - Remax Metro Gold [tim@timhardyhomes.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 11:57 AM To: Marcia Kies Subject: RE: need a letter '-li Marcia, I tacked together some of the email response from Will... The lot improvement costs for 950 Cumberland are in excess of what we anticipated when we made the full price offer it $60,000. • Working within the Stream Corridor Resource Protection (RP) area will be complicated and require a significant planning and design effort. The Minor Development process required in the RP area will cost $12,000 to $16,000 and take a couple of months to complete. • Mitigation is required for every tree removed from a RP area; this will cost an additional $6,000 to $10,000. Tree removal and clearing may be complicated by the city; I cannot get a clear indication of what will be allowed without a full permit application. We might not be able to clear the backyard enough to allow light into the house. . The Impact Fees are about $8,000 more than most other cities. . There is ground water in addition to the surface water drainage on the site and soil stability is a growing concern. I have recently found a sink hole adjacent to the site across from the documented (PBS 2005) land slide area. The slide area is a major restriction to the width of the lot building area at the front of the lot; this will undoubtedly require major foundation work, ($6,000 to $16,000) beyond my initial expectations. The additional costs for foundation and drainage are unknown at this time, but could easily spiral out of control and leave the feasibility of the project in doubt. . The City will not allow overhead power lines, $2,600 for trenching and pavement. fur continued Due Diligence explorations have not gone as well as I had hoped. The study of the soil stability problems will take extended analysis and design time. We have determined the direction we want o pursue and identified many of the potential costs. I also met with the Natural Resource Planner (she has )een on maternity leave) and had difficulty getting clear answers from her; She will be involved in many iiscretionary City decisions involving site design, landscaping and mitigation. We have ecently identified additional project costs that were not anticipated in the current Purchase Price. There is ilso still a great deal of risk of additional costs until the geotechnical and site design can be finalized (4 to 6 nonths). -hanks, -im Hardy, P.C. Zeal Estate Broker 'emax Metro -Gold 5220 NW Laidlaw Rd �uite 200 'ortland, OR 97229 03-351-0158 24hr/cell phone 03-726-4653 office 03-214-5573 eFax n@timhardyhomes.com ww.timhardyhomes.com ww.portlandmetrohomes4u.com < < < < GREAT HOME SEARCH SYSTEM!!! :S. Please remember that nay business is based on referrals from great clients & friends like you! rom: Marcia Kies [mailto:kiesm@hasson.com] ent: Monday, June 28, 2010 10:54 AM /30/2010 ITQ: tim@timhardyhomes.com Subject: need a letter Tim I am testifying at city council tonight can you resend the letter that gives all the reasons the price was so low or just do up a new one—this is about the sensitive lands overlay and all the other restrictions—thanks much Marcia Kies, Principal Broker The Hasson Company 15400 Boones Ferry Rd. _ake Oswego, OR 97035 503-789-1525 Cell 503-534-1516 Direct 503-212-5116 efax 'ortland Metropolitan Association of Realtors Million Dollar Club Broker of the Year 2007 /30/2010 RMLSweb - Agent Full FVMI.y iiv.....u) T�ily C'om,.nny ul oryain Lot Size: 15K-19,999SF Waterfront: / Perc Test: / Seller Disc: Lot Desc: PRIVATE Topography: SLOPED Soil Cond: Acres: Body Water: RdFrntg: Other Disc: Utilities: SWR -AVL, GAS -AVL, WAT-AVL Existing Structures: N / NONE Presented by: Marcia Kies The Hasson Company Realtors Phone: 503-635-9801 E-mail: kiesm an-hasson.com LOTS AND LAND Status: SLD 6/30/2010 ML#: 9047940 Area: 147 List Price: $60,000 I Address:950 CUMBERLAND RD Unit/Lot M City: Lake Oswego Zip: Additional Parcels: / Map Coord: 656/E/4 Zoning: Resid List Type: County:Clackamas Tax ID: 00189566 Subdivision: Forest Hills Plat 4 Manufhs Okay: N CC&Rs: Elem: FOREST HILLS Middle: LAKE OSWEGO High: LAKE OSWEGO Prop Type: RESID Legal: 552 FOREST HILLS PLAT 4 PT LT 273 Page 1 of 1 Agent Full 1:15:00 PM 97034 ER LR: N Internet/Address/No Blog/No AVM: Y/ Y/ / Offer/Nego: PDF Doc(s): 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 0.39 Lot Dimensions: 209x88xl98x82 Availability: SALE #Lots: Y Rd Surfc: PAVEDRD View: PARK Soil Type/Class: IMPROVEMENTS REMARKS Present Use: XSt/Dir: 10th to Sunningdale to Cumberland Private: Super location. Private setting at end of street, approx 17,270sf. Backs to Tryon Creek Park. Walk to elementary school, downtown shops/restaurants. Check with city of Lake Oswego for building requirements...see attached documents and plat map. Public: Super location. Private setting at end of street, approx 17,270sf. Backs to Tryon Creek Park. Walk to elementary school, downtown shops/restaurants. Check with city of Lake Oswego for building requirements ... see attached documents and plat map. FINANCIAL Prop Tax/Yr: $459.48 Crop/Land Lease: HOA Dues: HOA Incl: Terms: CASH Spcl Asmt Balance: Short Sale: N HOA Dues -2nd: Tax Deferral: BAC: % 2.7 Short Sale Offer: Total Comm Differs: N 3rd Party: N Bank Owned: N Escrow Preference: BROKER /AGENT DATA Ticor/L. Flynn BRCD: HASN01 Office: The Hasson Company Realtors Phone: 503-635-9801 LPID: KIESMARC Agent: Marcia Kies Phone: 503-534-1516 Agent E-mail: kiesm(o)hasson.com Agent Ext: CoLPID: CoBRCD: CoAgent: List: 6/19/2009 Exp: 6/30/2010 Show: CALL -LA, VACANT Tran: 6/18/2010 Owner: Jonge Vos Tenant/Other:Agents Cell Fax: 503-636-7499 Cel I/Pg r: 503-789-1525 CoPh: Poss: Phone: Phone: 503-789-1525 COMPARABLE INFORMATION Pend: 2/18/2010 DOM/CDOM: 244 / 244 O/Price: $75,000 Sold: 6/17/2010 Terms: CASH Sold Price: $16,000 SPID: HARDY S/Agt: Tim Hardy S/Off: REGO01 S/Off Phone: 503-726-4653 © RMLSTm 2010. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - INFORMATION NOT GUARANTEED AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED. SQUARE FOOTAGE IS APPROXIMATE & MAY INCLUDE BOTH FINISHED & UNFINISHED AREAS - CONSULT BROKER FOR INFO SCHOOL AVAILABILITY SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ittp://www.rmisweb.com/v2/engine/reportgen.asp?PMD=1 &RID=@LGC AGFULL&MLID ARRAY ... 6/30/2010 RMLSweb - History Results Address: 950 CUMBERLAND RD, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Tax ID: 00189566 Area: 147 County: Clackamas Marcia Kies 503-635-9801 Lots and Land The Hasson Company Realtors Page 1 of 2 6/30/2010 1:15:21 PM 42 Matches MLS# Hist Status Price Date Agent Office DUM/GUUM SLD SLD $16,000 6/17/2010 HARDY RE0001 244/244 PEN PEN $60,000 2/18/2010 KIESMARC HASN01 244/244 BOM ACT $60,000 12/31/2009 KIESMARC HASN01 195/0 EXP EXP $60,000 12/31/2009 KIESMARC HASN01 194/194 DAT ACT $60,000 11/12/2009 KIESMARC HASN01 146/0 PCH ACT $60,000 11/3/2009 KIESMARC HASN01 137/0 BOM ACT $75,000 10/16/2009 KIESMARC HASN01 119/0 PEN PEN $75,000 9/15/2009 KIESMARC HASN01 88/88 DAT ACT $75,000 6/23/2009 KIESMARC HASN01 4/0 NEW ACT $75,000 6/19/2009 KIESMARC HASN01 0/0 SLD SLD $120,000 2/29/2008 MEANEYDA JLSC05 476/476 DAT PEN $129,000 6/12/2006 GALDARIS EOTY40 544/0 PEN PEN $129,000 4/5/2006 GALDARIS EQTY40 476/476 XDC ACT $129,000 3/8/2006 GALDARIS EQTY40 448/0 DAT ACT $129,000 12/13/2005 GALDARIS EQTY40 363/0 BOM ACT $129,000 12/13/2005 GALDARIS EQTY40 363/0 XDC WTH $129,000 12/13/2005 GALDARIS EOTY40 363/0 WTH WTH $129,000 7/20/2005 GALDARIS EQTY40 217/217 PEN PEN $129,000 6/10/2005 GALDARIS EQTY40 177/0 XDC ACT $129,000 6/10/2005 GALDARIS EQTY40 177/0 BOM ACT $129,000 5/8/2005 GALDARIS EQTY40 144/0 PEN PEN $129,000 4/5/2005 GALDARIS EQTY40 111 / 0 DAT ACT $129,000 1/3/2005 GALDARIS EQTY40 19/0 DAT ACT $129,000 12/16/2004 GALDARIS EQTY40 1/0 DAT ACT $129,000 12/16/2004 GALDARIS EQTY40 1 / 0 NEW ACT $129,000 12/15/2004 GALDARIS EQTY40 0/0 EXP EXP $34,950 7/7/2004 JUNGBETT EQTY25 474/0 WTH WTH $34,950 7/6/2004 JUNGBETT EQTY25 804/0 PEN PEN $34,950 6/26/2003 JUNGBETT EQTY25 428/0 PCH ACT $34,950 6/11/2003 JUNGBETT EQTY25 413/0 BOM ACT $44,950 6/11/2003 JUNGBETT EQTY25 413/0 PEN PEN $44,950 5/16/2003 JUNGBETT EQTY25 387/0 DAT ACT $44,950 5/9/2003 JUNGBETT EQTY25 380/0 DAT ACT $44,950 5/9/2003 JUNGBETT EQTY25 380/0 BOM ACT $44,950 5/9/2003 JUNGBETT EQTY25 380/0 PEN PEN $44,950 1/26/2003 JUNGBETT EQTY25 277/0 PCH ACT $44,950 12/21/2002 JUNGBETT EQTY25 241 /0 BOM ACT $69,950 10/25/2002 JUNGBETT EQTY25 184/0 EXP EXP $69,950 10/24/2002 JUNGBETT EQTY25 183/0 © RMLSTm 2010. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - INFORMATION NOT GUARANTEED AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED. SQUARE FOOTAGE IS APPROXIMATE & MAY INCLUDE BOTH FINISHED & UNFINISHED AREAS - CONSULT BROKER FOR INFO. SCHOOL AVAILABILITY SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ttp://www.rmisweb.com/v2/engine/reportgen.asp?PMD=1 &RID=HS_RESULT&MLID_ARRAY_S=1... 6/30/2010 RMLSweb - History Results Marcia Kies 503-635-9801 Lots and Land The Hasson Company Realtors Page 2 of 2 6/30/2010 1:15:21 PM 42 Matches MI -b# Hist Status Price Date Agent Office DOM/CDOM 300874 BOM ACT $69,950 5/23/2002 JUNGBETT EQTY25 29/0 300874 PEN PEN $69,950 4/24/2002 JUNGBETT EQTY25 0/0 300874 NEW ACT $69,950 4/24/2002 JUNGBETT EQTY25 0/0 © RMLSTm 2010. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - INFORMATION NOT GUARANTEED AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED. SQUARE FOOTAGE IS APPROXIMATE & MAY INCLUDE BOTH FINISHED & UNFINISHED AREAS - CONSULT BROKER FOR INFO. SCHOOL AVAILABILITY SUBJECT TO CHANGE. .tp://www.rmisweb.com/v2/engine/reportgen.asp?PMD=1 &RID=HS_RESULT&MLID ARRAY S=1... 6/30/2010 My name is Larry Latuszek, I live at 1286 Larch St, and my property shows about 50% green on the SL mapping. It's about % acre, some gentle slope and some steeper slope. I'm not a developer, and I'm not interested in subdividing my property. It was great hearing many of the strong views given last night. I have to agree with more than one who insisted that many people don't know about SL and its ramifications. Listening to the 2nd Look Task Force last week didn't make us feel better about the way the city might improve things. It all reminds me of a quote by the LO School Superintendent about another matter, "there's no right way to do the wrong thing"... A lot of the cities reference for so called community values seem to go back to a legacy of a community wide values decision made years ago. I don't know how that poll was made, but I can imagine it was like the question, who wants to go to heaven (everyone raises their hands), who wants to go now (everyone puts down their hands). Please God pick someone else. Do I value trees clean air and the environment — yes....just pick somebody else to put your restrictions on. Better yet, let me live next to a SL property, so I can benefit while they pay the taxes, insurance, risk of falling trees, forest fire, diseased trees....by the way, do you know how much it costs to cut a large dead tree? I do, it costs thousands of dollars, especially in a narrow, sloped, constrained lot. The maintenance, removal, and replanting of trees should be the citys job if they are telling us not to disturb our property. Don't get me wrong ... I love living in Lake Oswego. Let me add that ..... I love it here, in spite of city regulations, not because it. And just how well has the SL regulation been working so far? In my experience, I bought my property early in 2002 — ivy was cascading down driveway retaining walls, totally covered the entire back property. (The ivy going up trees was so old it was solid wood the diameter of my forearm. It came down a hundred feet from the canopy back on the ground. I devoted the spring, summer and fall of 2002 to ridding much of that invasive plant life. And guess what, I didn't even know I was on a restricted land. I did it because I had learned it was bad for the environment. Meantime some of my neighbors on SL are still overrun, just as the city property across the street.) I cleaned up my property because I was motivated by my own incentive to accomplish my vision of a woodsy backyard, a place I can work at year round in retirement, doing good environmental stuff. One day I found out about the SL Ordinance. A restrictive and to this point, non -compensating piece of work. If anything, it strikes fear of doing something wrong and being turned in by a nasty neighbor, It is a de -motivator to work my property. You the mayor and city council are the leadership of this community. I think every motivational speaker would say a leader should lead by example and expect the best of people. So far, since this ordinance went into effect, we know there's been no example to follow, and city leadership must have expected the worse from people. I suggest you have a moratorium of the whole punitive ordinance, take a breather, and seriously consider a new approach to meeting community values, one that doesn't hurt our property values and rights as property owners. To: Lake Oswego City Council, June 30, 2010 Council Meeting From: John Surrett, 1685 Edgecliff Terrace, Lake Oswego Subject: Sensitive Lands Remarks According to statements made by members of the Sensitive Lands "Second Look Task Force", several privately -owned properties around Lake Oswego were haphazardly "overlayed" in the 1997/98 timeframe, and were included in the original Sensitive Lands Ordinance, as being within an "RC/upland tree grove zone. This action was based on older 1990 arterial maps from METRO. It was also pointed out by some members of the task force, that there was a practice to overlay properties as a continuous swath of land which were close to adjacent overlayed publicly -owned areas. Earlier this year, and to my surprise, I was informed and shown a list of overlayed properties which includes properties that I own on Edgecliff Terrace. This list indicated that I did not receive advance notice of this action by the City. Following several meetings on the Sensitive Lands matter, I have been educated on several of the determining factors used for the RC/Upland tree grove overlays. These factors include: 1. The property has developable potential to be sub -divided into building site parcels. 2. The property has upland tree groves within the RC zone. My properties on Edgecliff Terrace have no upland tree groves on the upper portion of the property beginning from Edgecliff Terrace, have no developable potential for subdividing into more buildable sites. 60 to 70% of the property is part of a very steep cliff and is not buildable. The overlay zone is at the bottom of the cliff and begins at the edge of Oswego Lake. The zone is approximately the final 30 feet of an approximately 200 foot cliff from the top of the cliff residences, and it starts from the shoreline of Oswego Lake. There are approximately 3-4 fir trees in this area and they are widely dispersed from each other and are not in a grove. There are no streams on these properties which is true of all of the Edgecliff Terrace area. Oswego Lake, according to Metro, is not a captured or overlayed body of water. Edgecliff Terrace is just that. It is a very steep cliff and the homes reside at the top off and back from the cliff. Edgecliff Terrace is a short road with seven homes and it takes off from the South Shore Viewpoint on the East end and rejoins South Shore Blvd. on the West End. The South Shore Viewpoint property was purchased in the early 1990s with Metro open space/park levy proceeds from the Ann Schukart estate in excess of $ 2 million. From this property purchase, the overlay extends and captures the Edgecliff Terrace privately -owned properties lower parts of the steep cliff. I oppose this action by the City and request that my properties be removed from the 1997-98 RC zone for the reasons I have stated. The properties fall outside of the criteria for being overlayed. Thank you. Testimony - City Council - 06/30/10 Second Look Task Force Findings At one of last week's work sessions, in a discussion of the process of resource identification, It was stated that with the initial identifications in the early 1990's, property owners had an opportunity to contest, but that most of the owners who did contest did not bring evidence to support an exclusion. One Task Force member claimed that any exclusion would necessarily have to be supported by scientific evidence and expert testimony. However, a close look at the original maps done by both Metro and the City, clearly suggests that a covert process of exclusion did occur. Properties that fit the definition of Sensitive Lands, mysteriously dropped off the list, without scientific evidence, without expert testimony, and without a public hearing. Many of those exclusions were owned by City staff members, by Council members, by Planning Commission members and various other board and task force members. A former o-� City Manager's property was excluded. Two members(lyesterday's panel, possibly four council members, and at least one City staff member here tonight have properties that fit the definition but are not on the Sensitive Lands, existing or proposed. Those same lists are now being used to take property rights, to harm property values, and to restrict the use of over 1,000 private properties, without compensation. A List of those excluded properties will be submitted to the City soon, and I am requesting that for purposes of equity and fairness, that whatever process was in effect ,at that time, be made transparent, and that scientific evidence and expert testimony be provided to explain why those properties were excluded before Council moves forward on this issue. -2 - The creation of the Second Look Task Force and the appointment of the Second Look Task Force Members occurred in a suspicious way, in my opinion. The City Charter states that: "The Mayor at the approval of the Councilors, shall appoint the members of all City Committees, boards and commissions"... and... "the Mayor may establish and appoint Special or temporary committees from any of the members of the Council and may determine the business to be placed upon the Council Meeting Agenda...", but, a Staff member, the Director of Planning & Building Services, choose the Second Look Task Force members, which seems to contradict the City Charter. In addition, citizen input was prohibited, which seems to contradict Statewide Planning Goal 1. The reason given was that the Task Force was intended as a technical advisory committee to the Planning Department. The Task Force report, however was released directly to Council. State Planning Goal 1 (OAR 660-015-0000(1) charges cities to develop a citizen involvement program that. insures the opportunity for citizen involvement in all phases of the planning process (emphasis on all). When we cannot trust leadership and Staff to respect citizen rights, and when citizen input is restricted, it seems to follow that a lack of trust will only engender lack of support for proposed recommendations. In the section of the Second Look Task Force Findings entitled, Evolution of Protections, it is stated that the City has desired to lead the region in environmental protection and in prior -3 - Council Meetings staff has also expressed several times a desire to do more than was required for Metro compliance. While I agree that Lake Oswego residents value natural resources, we also value property rights, which, also, are integral to ensuring a livable community. A home is often the biggest purchase that an individual makes in their lifetime. At this point in time, I could not recommend that anyone purchase property in Lake Oswego. The risk is too great, and if Lake Oswego continues to be known as a place where it's too risky to purchase real property, economic development of the City will surely be threatened as well. The City's desire to go over and beyond what is required, advertises that property rights are not important here. During the Task Force Meetings it became apparent, at least to me, that some of the Task Force Members where there to feather their nest with future job opportunities. For example, in a discussion of discontinuous riparian protection a recommendation was made to "highlight streams that are in culverts. To "highlight" the culverts in the Marylhurst, Glenmorrie, and Skyland's Basin, which drains into the Willamette River, would be comparable to freeing the water that flows downhill in Portland Heights. It would jeopardize both human safety and property. We have enough uncontrolled water running down steep slopes. It is obvious given the time line that has been established that there is a hurry to get this Issue out of the way, but I can guarantee this issue will not go away until it is made fair! Carolyne R. Jones - 2818 S. Poplar Way, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 I am Art Scevola, a nearly 18 year resident of Lake Oswego and last I checked am subject to a sensitive lands overlay. Thank you In consideration of the opportunity to address this council, it occurred to me to use an analogy in order to attempt to reverse or delay the course of your pre ordained Sensitive Lands Agenda. It is apparent to almost everyone that delaying the vote and at the least restructuring the overlays is the overwhelming sentiment of at least the people who have attended this session both last night and tonight. There was a gentleman who spoke last night, who had, prior to a couple of weeks ago, never heard of or been aware of the SLA and how it would impact him and his neighbors. Having just become so, he was entirely sure he wanted nothing to do with it. I thought to myself that if he were a farmer and the government drove a tractor on to his land, harvested, loaded, and drove off with his crop without even so much as an offer to pay for it he would have been no less outraged. In plain English had that been so it would be theft and if you or I had done so, punishable by fine or imprisonment under law. Thus, I would call him a wax papertaxpayer, that is one who when left alone, stays cool, follows the basic rules of civil behavior, pays his fair share, and covers his own business without much fanfare. However once awakened to of the government's proposed "theft" of his property, like wax paper that gets put in an oven there was a problem that could no longer be ignored, wasn't likely to cover anything for long, and would in short order become brittle and either break or burn up. Ladies and gentleman, this community is filled with wax paper taxpayers who unlike this gentleman are NOT here tonight but whose rights and property are also being trampled on by an overreaching and misguided government. It is no coincidence that the city of Lake Oswego is a dues paying (your tax dollars) member of the ICLEI, the largest NGO that is the point of the spear for the United Nations sustainability initiative known as Agenda 21. Please google it as there is not the time here to properly expose this radical environmental agenda. What I would ask we remember as we celebrate our country's Declaration of Independence is that Government's 1st responsibility is to protect our Constitutional rights not to eliminate or reduce them. The slippery slope we find ourselves on today is a direct result of more and morE of our individual rights and freedoms are being either taken away or substantially diminished by the regulations from radical environmentalists in the EPA and the "nanny state" legislators in the local, state, & Federal governments. Please make no mistake this manner of compliance with Metro is nothing more than a disguised effort to empower some at the expense of others out of which will come greater property restrictions without compensation for the latter and wider control and potential financial reward for the former. In a Constitutional Republic as ours still is, we as taxpayers cannot let this happen. The council vote on this measure needs to be delayed and it's restrictions and confiscation of our property rights with the resultant loss of control and value must be measured and compensated if ever enacted. I would urge all of you in this room and this city to refer to your rights under the Constitution DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT and see this for what it is, Remembering that the the ultimate remedy for an abuse of power and taking of rights such as presented by the SLA is the ballot you cast in November for those that would represent you properly within the authority and protection of the Constitution they are sworn to protect and defend. Tap to Get Started with Pages. Scroll through the document. Touch the images and text. And experience the most powerful word processor ever made for a mobile device. Testimony Lake Oswego,June 30, 2010 P we r+1f' I understand that aprzfftm of this regulation is that it will help to preserve species. That premise needs to be examined scientifically. Will regulation help to preserve species or might it make end up harming the goal of species preservation? The unexamined assumption that regulation will help to preserve species is meeting some serious challenges now in scientific circles. I will leave with the city a copy of an abstract of a recent article from the prestigious journal, "Conservation Letters", Volume 3, p. 91-97, 2010, which came to the following startling conclusions (from the abstract): 1. "...we conclude that the Act's (Endangered Species Act ) underlying assumption—that once recovery goals for a species are met it will no longer require management—is false." 2. "Our analysis indicates that 84% of the species listed under the Act are conservation reliant." One may conclude from this that willing private landowners must undertake the task of preserving species on their lands. How can this happen if we establish disincentives for them to do so? Are the proposed regulations directly counter-productive to their purpose of saving species? That question needs to be answered I commend to your reading the excellent work being done at University of Oregon by an insightful scientist and scholar, Adam Novick., which is right on point. I recommend that the decision makers read his recent work and, better yet, talk to him to get a better understanding of the possible, unintended, outcomes of increased regulation. If asked I will forward to you by email attachments of one of his talks, which contains a slide presentation of the main points and a useful bibliography on the subject area. You may call him at 541-345-0467. Lioreaon.edu Thank you, Craig Chisholm 503-635-4719 June 21, 2010 Lake Oswego City Council Dear Council Members, We are writing to voice our concern regarding the revisions to the Sensitive Lands ordinance that was passed by you last year. We have attended a neighborhood association meeting where Mayor Hoffman spoke; we have reviewed the ordinance and the Second Look Task Force recommendations and we have reviewed other material in the Lake Oswego Review and material provided by the Stewards committee, and we have studied the material recently sent out by the City. We have also talked to our neighbors and to several people effected by this ordinance. We have tried to be open-minded and do our own interpretation of this issue. We believe that the City Council acted in haste and without due deliberation when they passed this ordinance. We believe it in an unnecessary and expensive complication for landowners. We also believe it constitutes a taking of property in that it limits property use and decreases private property value. We see no positive value in over -reaching the protection required by Metro and other land use planning statutes, which we believe this ordinance does. It seems to us that mutually beneficial education, planning and cooperative methods for protecting natural resources is the way to go — rather than the punitive and divisive methods employed by enacting this ordinance. While it appears that the Second Look Task Force recommendations go a long way toward addressing our concerns, we believe the Sensitive Lands ordinance as it now stands should simply be repealed and a new ordinance developed over time which meets the Metro requirements and which works in a cooperative way with citizens to meet the intent of protecting the area's sensitive lands (as defined by Metro). If it is arguably simpler and less expensive to work on amendments, we would reluctantly support that method of fixing the onerous ordinance you passed in April of last year. As landowners in a wooded part of Eastern Oregon, we just completed a voluntary certification program to address wildfire prevention issues. This program provides education, support and mutually beneficial action to create buffer zones around buildings. This was a positive experience and we made changes that meet the goals of the program. It cost us money but we were happy to do the things that might make our property safer and less likely to add to a fire problem. We believe the citizens of Lake Oswego are equally interested and concerned in taking care of our natural resources. This ordinance as it now stands serves as a deterrent to association that the city would be reviewing the Sensitive Lands properties every few years and "adding" to the overlay. This does not serve to encourage one to move to habitat creation and native plants! We urge the City Council to repeal this ordinance and move to a posture of cooperative protection of the natural and sensitive lands in Lake Oswego. We are proud of our community and of the care and concern that our neighbors place in maintaining the quality of life in Lake Oswego. We hope that the City Council will show respect and confidence in its citizens. Respectfully, _ Tom and Kennedy 1451 Hors' e Curve Lake Oswego, OR 97034 June 18, 2010 JUN 2 1 2010 CITY OF LAKE oprE'GC The Honorable Jack Hoffman Mayor City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Dear Mayor Hoffman - On behalf of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association, which includes nearly half of our association area properties impacted by sensitive lands discussions, we request that additional public comment be taken after the July 20 date outlined in your June 6 memo. Because of the time and energy that has put into the study, and the impact on personal property and the summer schedule irregularities, we ask that the comment period extend to the first of September and add a public comment opportunity after July to catch the remainder of citizens who might not be following issues in the summer. We will attempt to notify the bulk of neighbors in our neighborhood to follow the information provided in your June 6 memo about the process, procedures, and public comment and any additional opportunities you schedule. Thank you for taking the time to engage the public and specifically property owners in this process. Sincerely, Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association Liz Hartman Jim Radda Todd Ahrens Victoria Cartwright Brenda Troisi Carolyne Jones Barbara Browning Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association c/o 1748 Glenmorrie Terrace Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 glenmorrie(&aol.com