Last updated: March 7, 2024
The Applicant, New Look Development LLC, for LU 23-0002 has petitioned the Clackamas Circuit Court (case 24CV03746) seeking relief in obtaining their permit from the City of Lake Oswego to construct their sewer line through the charter-protected Waluga Park – West Nature Preserve. Under Oregon statutes, Applicants have the right to a final decision within 120 days of an application being deemed complete.
The City has advocated exclusively for the Applicant, not the residents of Lake Forest NA, not the majority of voters’ who enacted Chapter X – Park Development Limitation, and not the ~100 citizens who submitted testimony. The Deputy City Attorney has issued unsubstantiated opinions in an attempt to undermine Lake Oswego voters’ constitutional authority to enact municipal legislation through initiatives.
Additional, the City’s questionable project scheduling is beyond negligent and leaves to one to wonder their intent:
- significant error calculating the final decision date and informing the public late (Dec 16, 2023) in the process
- Actual: Dec 26, 2023 vs Published: February 12, 2024
- knowing before the public comment period that this land use application was likely to be appealed to City Council,
- lack of urgency scheduling within the City’s published DRC timelines, and
- 50+ days of delays between milestones
Pursuant to ORS 227.179(2, 5), long-time Lake Oswego resident Michael Kohlhoff (and former Wilsonville City Attorney) filed a “motion to intervene” with the circuit court asserting that Lake Oswego voters’ exercised their Oregon constitutional rights under “home rule” charters, Article XI(2), and Article IV(1)(5), to amend the City of Lake Oswego’s Charter through initiative powers and enacted Chapter X – Park Development Limitation as a significant and final land use regulation for Nature Preserves that prohibits this development.
A ruling in favor of the Plaintiff (and Defendant) could have wide implications on all Oregon home rule charter city voters’ rights to enact local legislation through initiatives, including putting Oregon City, West-Linn, and Tualatin charter-protected parks in jeopardy.
On March 6, 2024, the court ruled: “The purposes and limitations set forth in Chapter X, sections 41 and 43 are entirely consistent with and further the objectives set forth in the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan carry forward sections 1, 2, 5, and 6 described above. To use a different term, the provisions of Chapter X nest with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, I conclude that Chapter X, Sections 41 and 43 of the Lake Oswego City Charter are the type of municipal laws falling within the definition of a land use regulation under ORS 197.015(11)…I hold that Chapter X, Sections 41 and 43 are land use regulations under ORS 197.015(11)”
This case (and fate of Waluga Park – West Nature Preserve) is currently pending an evidentiary hearing (TBD) to determine if the proposed action by New Look Development LLC violates a substantive provision of Chapter X, sections 41 and 43
Timeline of activities for this court case:
• Plaintiff: New Look Development LLC
• Defendant: City of Lake Oswego
• Intervener: Michael Kohlhoff
| Date | Clackamas County Circuit Court: 24CV03746 |
|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2024 | Plaintiff: Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus |
| Jan 26, 2024 | Plaintiff: Notice of filing of petition for peremptory writ of mandamus |
| Feb 1, 2024 | Kohlhoff: • Motion to Intervene • Memorandum Supporting Motion to Intervene, Deny Writ, Oral Arguments Requested • Proposed Order Granting Motion to Intervene |
| Feb 5, 2024 | Kohlhoff: Supplement to Memorandum |
| Feb 6, 2024 | Defendant: Answer to Writ of Mandamus |
| Feb 8, 2024 | Plaintiff: New Look Development LLC’s Response to Motion to Intervene • Plaintiff alleges the right to recover attorney fees, costs, and disbursements against Intervenor, which Plaintiff considers is an “adverse party.” |
| Feb 9, 2024 | Plaintiff, City of Lake Oswego, and Intervener present case to Clackamas County Circuit Court judge during 2 hour deliberation. • Judge determined court has jurisdiction in the matter • Judge determined Intervener has right to intervene • Judge listened to arguments to determine Chapter X’s applicability as a land use regulation |
| Feb 12, 2024 | Court: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Granting Motion to Intervene Plaintiff: Plaintiff-Relator’s Supplemental Memorandum RE: Chapter X as a land use regulation Kohlhoff: Intervener Supplemental Memorandum |
| Feb 13, 2024 | Defendant: Memorandum RE: Whether Chapter X is a “land use regulation” |
| Mar 6, 2024 | Court: Opinion and Order “I hold that Chapter X, Sections 41 and 43 are land use regulations under ORS 197.015(11) |