Oregon City staff outline options for McLaughlin Promenade encroachments; commissioners authorize targeted follow-ups

City staff presented the commission with options for resolving multiple private encroachments along the McLaughlin Promenade at the March 11 work session, and commissioners provided direction to pursue a mix of site-specific responses including vacations, negotiated agreements and removals.

Staff told commissioners the promenade was dedicated to public use and that easements or lot-line adjustments are not generally recommended as a way to resolve encroachments that conflict with the original dedication; instead, staff outlined four options: record an encroachment license agreement, process a property vacation to move a narrow strip of promenade to the adjacent property, record a simple letter of acknowledgement of the encroachment, or require removal.

City staff and City Attorney/land-use staff (Bill) explained that when property was dedicated to a public purpose the city acts as trustee and the dedication can only be removed through a vacation process. Bill said easements and lot-line adjustments would not clear the dedication and would risk future legal uncertainty.

"The only way to get rid of the dedication is through a vacation process," Bill (staff member) said during the discussion.

The discussion considered each property individually. Highlights of commissioners' direction included: - VFW / three-rivers parcel (earlier described): the VFWs representative proposed a land swap that would give the city roughly 4,200 square feet back to parkland while the VFW would receive a smaller fenced area surrounding a flagpole and stairs. Commissioners expressed preliminary support for the concept and asked staff to return cost estimates and draft legal descriptions for a vacation and replat; the VFW offered to discuss cost-sharing. - Several small encroachments (sheds, pots, rock borders, chairs, and a fire pit) were ordered removed or to be addressed through a license agreement; commissioners specifically instructed staff to ask property owners to remove small items such as rock walls and portable planters that create a false private boundary on public land. - A stair and small shed that encroached onto the promenade were flagged for site inspection; commissioners said if a structure is not on a permanent foundation it should be moved, while if it is on a foundation staff should pursue a right-of-way permit or negotiated resolution rather than a mandatory vacation. - For a cluster of properties where a paved access route divides the promenade, commissioners expressed openness to vacations that would formalize the existing access pattern, but asked staff to bring back site visits and cost estimates before final decisions. Commissioners emphasized fairness and asked about potential property-tax implications; staff agreed to consult the county assessor and report back.

Staff will schedule field visits to review at least the following parcels and return with cost and legal analyses: 302, 306, 311, 406, 408 (north Bluff/parking areas) and related parcels discussed in the packet. Staff also said four property owners had already signed encroachment license agreements and that easements were not being recommended.

Why it matters: The promenade is publicly dedicated land; allowing continued private use without a clear legal mechanism risks future litigation or limits the citys ability to manage the promenade as public space. The commissions direction seeks to balance resolving long-standing encroachments while limiting one-size-fits-all solutions.

What happens next: Staff will schedule a site-walk with commissioners and county assessor staff, prepare cost estimates (survey, legal description and recording fees) for possible vacations where appropriate, pursue negotiated license agreements where removal is impractical, and return with recommended formal actions.