HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Report 06-11-25 CCPH 07-01-25 w-Exh AN 25-0001
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Subject: Ordinance 2958, Annexing property at 5450 Kenny Street (AN 25-0001)
Meeting Date: July 1, 2025
Report Date: June 11, 2025
Staff Member: Paul Espe, Associate Planner
Department: Planning and Building Services
Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ☐ Motion ☐ Approval
☒ Public Hearing ☐ Denial
☒ Ordinance ☐ None Forwarded ☐ Resolution ☒ Not Applicable ☐ Information Only Comments: This annexation is being processed as a
public hearing (not expedited decision) under Metro
Code 3.09.050(A-D). ☐ Council Direction ☐ Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation: Enact Ordinance 2958.
Recommended Language for Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2958.
Project / Issue Relates To: Annexation of residential property to the city.
Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question):
☐Council Goals/Priorities
☐Adopted Master Plan(s)
☒Not Applicable
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/BACKGROUND
The proposed annexation is owner-initiated and will result in the addition of approximately 0.44
acres of residential land to the City. This Council Report describes the reasons for the
annexation and provides basic background information. This annexation will result in property
that will be zoned R-10 as designated in the Comprehensive Plan shown in Attachment A. The
criteria for approving annexations and findings in support of this annexation are included in
Attachment B of Exhibit A-1 (Ordinance 2958).
Owner/Applicant: Dana Bennett and Darin Rouhier, Trustees of the Bennett Rouhier Trust,
dated June 27, 2018 /Jesse Davis, Pavilion Construction
Page 2
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Location/Size: Southeast corner of Pilkington Road and Kenny Street, approximately 925 feet
south of the intersection of Pilkington and Jean Roads / 0.44 acres (19,166 square feet).
Existing Land Use: The property (Tax Map/Lot 21E18DC05400) is vacant. The single-family
dwelling was recently demolished through Clackamas County.
Neighborhood: Rosewood Neighborhood Association
Purpose of Annexation: Owner initiated annexation to connect to city sewer and develop the
property. (Future development of the property is beyond the scope of this review).
DISCUSSION
Plan and Zone Designation: The subject property is currently under Clackamas County’s
jurisdiction and zoned Low-Density Residential R-10. It is designated R-10, Medium Density
Residential on the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map and will be zoned R-10,
pursuant to LOC 50.01.004.5.a-c.
Development Potential: Based on the size and shape of the parcel, it cannot be further divided.
However, it could be developed under the densities allowed under the middle housing
standards.
Proposed
Annexation
Vicinity Map
Page 3
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Statewide Goal 10 and Complete Neighborhoods and Housing
Statewide Goal 10 Housing
City Comprehensive Plan Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Chapter
Statewide Planning Goal 10 (and the Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Goal in the City
Comprehensive Plan) ensures the opportunity to provide adequate numbers of needed housing
units, the efficient use of buildable land within urban growth boundaries, and to provide greater
certainty in the development process so as to reduce housing costs.
Staff has provided findings (Exhibit A-1, Attachment B) that the proposed annexation and
designation of City R-10 zoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Map, and will
help to meet the City’s housing needs as identified by the Housing Needs Analysis (HNA). The
proposal would provide the opportunity for needed housing as identified in the HNA, is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore complies with Goal 10. (See Attachment
B for the complete findings under Goal 10).
Sewer and Water Service: Sanitary sewer service is available from an 8-inch collection line
located in Pilkington Road along the site frontage that will be able to provide service to this site.
(No sanitary sewer service is currently available on Kenny Street.)
The City requires sanitary sewer extensions to be taken to the upstream property line when a
property proposes to connect. In this case, the sewer will not be required to be extended to the
east boundary of the site along Kenny Street because the City Wastewater Master Plan shows a
future public main extension coming from the east and terminating near the east portion of this
site, with a gap to Pilkington Road. Therefore, this site will be allowed to connect to the existing
public sanitary sewer main located in Pilkington Road without being required to construct any
public sewer main extension in Kenny Street.
Note: The Engineering Staff has preliminarily commented by memo on the development
standards that would apply.
Water: The property is served by the Rivergrove Water District. There is a Rivergrove Water
District water main located on both Pilkington Road and Kenny Street along the site frontage.
The nearest existing fire hydrant is located across from the site on the southwest corner of
Pilkington Road/Kenny Street.
The City of Lake Oswego entered into an agreement with the Rivergrove Water District on
February 8, 1984 for water services. The agreement stipulates that the District will continue to
serve the property upon annexation if it is capable of delivering a minimum flow of 1500 gallons
per minute with a 20 psi residual pressure during periods of peak domestic demand. The
District is currently able to meet these demands. If upon further development, this level of
service is not provided, then City water may need to be provided.
Surface Water Management: Once the property is annexed, the territory will be subject to the
City’s stormwater management regulations. Any new development will be subject to these
Page 4
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
provisions, which ensure that new development does not have an adverse effect on adjoining
properties and does not overburden the City stormwater system.
Service Districts: Upon annexation, the property will, by operation of ORS 222.520, be
withdrawn from the Lake Grove Fire District #57 (per the July 2003 urban service agreement; no
bonded debt) the Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County and the Clackamas
County Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District (no bonded debt) but will remain in the Lake Grove
Park District (per the July 2003 urban service agreement), Rivergrove Water District (no bonded
debt) and the Library District of Clackamas County (per the 2009 County IGA).
Transportation: The City’s Transportation System Plan (TSP) implements the multi-modal
transportation system that will meet the needs of the city for a 20-year planning horizon.
Pilkington Road is a Major Collector and is under the jurisdiction and permitting authority of the
City of Lake Oswego. The nearest mass transit service is Tri-Met bus line 37, which operates
between downtown Lake Oswego and the Tigard and Beaverton Transit Centers. Service can be
accessed at the intersection of Pilkington and Jean Roads.
The draft findings provided in Attachment B of Exhibit A-1 conclude that the proposed
annexation complies with all applicable State statutes and Metro code requirements.
Resolution 19-59: Policies Discouraging Destruction of Natural Resources and Significant Trees
Prior to Annexation
On March 6, 2025, staff visited the site and observed five large Douglas fir trees ranging from
32 inches in diameter to 45 inches in diameter that were removed from the property. These are
identified on the site plan of the Tree Removal Certification Application (Exhibit D-1) as trees
#11305, #11306, #11307, #11341 and 11342. Staff found that the Policies Discouraging
Destruction of Natural Resources and Significant Trees Prior to Annexation (Resolution 19-59)
may apply. The applicant states that trees #11228 and 11216 were removed in 1995 prior to
the applicant’s purchase of the property and Tree #11209 fell during a storm.
The annexation policy was adopted by the City Council in 2004 and updated in 2019. It was
developed to encourage property owners interested in applying for annexation to the City to
preserve and protect natural resources and significant trees on their property. The City has a
protection program for hundreds of acres of stream corridors, wetlands and tree groves within
the City and its potential annexation area (LOC 50.05.010 and 50.07.004.8). More detailed
information can be found in the Findings [Attachment B and Resolution 19-59 (Exhibit E-4)].
In order to evaluate the tree removal for compliance with the City’s annexation policy, staff
advised the applicant to submit a Type II County Tree Removal Certification application. This is a
program offered by the city to residents in unincorporated Clackamas County within the City’s
Urban Growth Boundary to receive certification that tree removal complies with the City’s
annexation policy. It is a voluntary program and is not an actual permit issued by the City.
Page 5
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Findings
The applicant’s Type II County Tree Removal Certification application is included as Exhibit E-2,
and staff’s findings for the application is included as Exhibit E-3. Overall, staff finds that Type II
Criteria 2 and 3 would have been met for the tree removal, but additional information is
necessary to determine compliance with Criterion 1. This is because the applicant provided a
generalized building envelope defined by the setbacks (outlined in blue in Exhibit E-2), instead
of a specific development plan allowable under the base zone.
Since the trees removed were not deemed significant under Criterion 3, meeting the
requirements for Criterion 1 would likely have been feasible. Based on the limited tree removal,
mainly confined to the building area on the site, and the retention of many other large firs on
the site, it appears that the applicant’s intent was to remove trees that would be affected by
future development rather than to indiscriminately clear-cut the site or damage natural
resources in violation of the annexation policy.
If the Council decides to approve the annexation request, staff recommends that the applicant
be required to mitigate the removal of the five trees by replanting at a minimum 1:1 ratio with
a mix of native species of medium to large stature to complement the existing Douglas-firs and
oaks on the site. All mitigation trees should be carefully planted to avoid conflicts with future
development on the site.
The Council has the following decision options:
1. Approve the annexation of the property and require no mitigation.
2. Approve the annexation of the property and require mitigation normally required in the
Type II tree removal application by replanting at a minimum 1:1 ratio with a mix of
native species prior to final building inspection for any future dwelling. All mitigation
trees shall be carefully planted to avoid conflicts with future development on the site.
3. Delay annexation of the property for a period of three years and require replacement of
the trees at a 3:1 ratio in accordance with the provisions in Resolution 19-59(4)(a-g)
[Exhibit E-4].1
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated assessed value of the residential property is $175,438. The estimated tax
revenue after the parcels are annexed is $454.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve AN 25-0001 (Ordinance 2958) under Option 2.
1 Note that the annexation policy should not be construed as preventing the Council from exercising its full
discretionary authority in granting or denying petitions for annexation as otherwise permitted by Oregon law.
Page 6
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
EXHIBITS
A. Draft Ordinances
A-1 Ordinance 2958 (Draft Annexation, 06/11/25)
Attachment A: Map of Proposed Annexation, 02/12/25
Attachment B: Criteria, Findings, Conclusion, and Effective Date, 06/11/25
B. Minutes
None.
C. Staff Reports
None.
D. Graphics/Plans
D-1 Applicant’s site plan, 04/03/25.
E. Written Materials
E-1 Housing Needs Analysis 2023 (Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 10)
Comprehensive Plan excerpt, 09/21/23 (due to size, use link below to view this
exhibit)
E-2 Application for Tree Removal Certification for Unincorporated Properties and
Checklist
E-3 County Type II Tree Removal Certification Review 04/21/25
E-4 Resolution 19-59 Amending Policies Discouraging Destruction of Natural
Resources and Significant Trees Prior to Annexation
LINK TO PUBLIC RECORDS FOLDER FOR THIS CASE
https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=2919942&repo=CityOfLakeOswego
Ordinance 2958, AN 25-0001
(21E18DC05400) EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 1 OF 3
ORDINANCE 2958
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ONE PARCEL CONSISTING OF 0.44
ACRES AT 5450 KENNY STREET; DECLARING CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ZONING OF R-10,
PURSUANT TO LOC 50.01.004.5(a-c); AND REMOVING THE TERRITORY FROM CERTAIN
DISTRICTS (AN 25-0001).
WHEREAS, annexation to the City of Lake Oswego of the territory shown in the map in
Attachment “A” and described below, would constitute a contiguous boundary change under
ORS 222.111, initiated by petition from the property owners as outlined in ORS 222.111(2); and,
WHEREAS, the City has provided written notification of this annexation as required under ORS
222.120(3); and,
WHEREAS, the City has received consent for the proposed annexation from all of the property
owners and not less than 50 percent of the electors residing in the territory, as outlined in ORS
222.125; and,
WHEREAS, the territory lies within the Lake Grove Fire District #57 district boundaries and the
district has no bonded debt, and pursuant to the July 2003 urban service agreement between
the City and the district the territory should be withdrawn from the district, the City elects ORS
222.520(2)(b), the territory shall be withdrawn from that district immediately upon approval of
the annexation; and,
WHEREAS, the territory lies within the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District
boundaries and the district has no bonded debt, the City elects ORS 222.520(2)(b), and the
territory shall be withdrawn from the district upon approval of the annexation; and,
WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Surface Water Management Agency of
Clackamas County and the district has no bonded debt, the city elects ORS 222.520(2)(b) and
the territory shall be withdrawn from that agency immediately upon approval of the
annexation; and,
WHEREAS, LOC 50.01.004.5 specifies that, where the Comprehensive Plan Map requires a
specific Zoning Map designation to be placed on the territory annexed to the City, such a zoning
designation shall automatically be imposed on the territory as of the effective date of the
annexation; and,
WHEREAS, this annexation is consistent with the Urbanization Chapter of the City of Lake
Oswego’s acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, Oregon Revised Statutes 222.111(2), 222.120
and 222.125 for boundary changes, and Metro Code Sections 3.09.030 (A-C), 3.09.040(A)(1-4)
and 3.09.050.
Ordinance 2958, AN 25-0001
(21E18DC05400) EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 2 OF 3
Now, therefore, the City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. The real property described as follows is hereby annexed to the City of Lake
Oswego:
A tract of land located within the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 1
East of the Willamette Meridian, City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon, and being a
part of Lot 20, Block 3, Oswego Acres (Plat No. 503), plat records of Clackamas County, said tract
of land being all that property conveyed to Dana L. Bennett and Darin L. Rouhier, Trustees of the
Bennett Rouhier Trust dated June 27, 2018, by Warranty Deed recorded July 11, 2018 in the
Official Records of Clackamas County, as Recording No. 2018-043040; said tract of land more
particularly described as follows:
The West one-half of Lot 20, Block 3, Oswego Acres (Plat No. 503), plat records of Clackamas
County.
The annexed territory is depicted on Attachment A.
Section 2. The above Recitals are incorporated.
Section 3. The annexed area lies within the following districts and shall be retained within
these districts upon the effective date of annexation:
Lake Grove Park District
Library District of Clackamas County
Rivergrove Water District
Section 4. The annexed area lies within the following districts and shall be withdrawn from
these districts upon the effective date of annexation:
Lake Grove Fire District #57
Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District
Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County
Section 5. In accordance with LOC 50.01.004.5, the City zoning designation of R-10, shall be
applied to the subject properties on the effective date of annexation, as shown on Attachment
A.
Section 6. The City Council hereby adopts the findings of fact and conclusions set forth in
Attachment B in support of this annexation ordinance.
Section 7. Effective Dates:
a. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance. Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter,
Section 35.C, this ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day after its enactment.
Ordinance 2958, AN 25-0001
(21E18DC05400) EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 3 OF 3
b. Effective Date of Annexation. Following the filing of the annexation records with
the Secretary of State as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall be effective upon the
later of either:
1. the 30th day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or
2. the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State.
Provided, however, that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the annexation as
established above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or general election or
after the deadline for filing notice of election before any other election held by any city, district
or other municipal corporation involved in the area to be annexed, the annexation shall
become effective on the day after the election.
Read by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego held on the 1st day of July, 2025.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
________________________________
Joseph M. Buck, Mayor
________________________________
Dated
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Kim Vermillion, Interim City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney
18682
5530
18124
53
3
3
18275
1
8
0
1
9
55
6
8
55
4
6
52
9
7
55
0
3
18
2
2
0
18200
54
9
8
56
7
0
18575
52
2
1
53
4
4
18026
56
2
4
17913
52
9
1
1836
7
18
2
2
1
18721
53
5
2
18430
18086
52
9
0
18470
56
5
5
18179
54
6
3
18511
51
6
5
18121
53
0
5
55
4
6
18027
5598
55
5
4
18104
17901
18235
179
3
4
1
8
0
2
3
54
5
6
18147
18444
52
6
7
183
0
5
18115
5390
534
0
52
7
5
52
5
4
1804
0
56
2
5
52
2
1
55
0
2
18108
18653
52
7
7
57
3
4
54
8
1
17956
57
2
2
18215
18581
5486
53
3
6
18014
566
4
53
2
0
17968
18360
53
1
4
52
4
0
5377
18148
18042
18113
52
9
3
18698
53
6
5
18
6
6
7
18050
55
1
5
54
3
0
56
0
2
53
6
8
52
7
2
53
4
1
17975
52
2
6
183
1
4
18098
18650
56
0
3
53
2
9
52
2
0
18491
52
8
0
18700
180
1
0
18350
53
1
1
18570
17944
53
3
3
54
5
0
55
1
2
52
6
6
1
8
0
1
7
55
3
6
57
1
3
56
2
6
53
9
2
5590
55
6
6
1
8
1
0
6
17953
180
9
6
57
3
3
1824518341
53
4
1
1
8
6
9
5
18350
18117
55
3
3
18004
18656
54
2
9
18
0
8
8
18586
17883
55
6
8
55
3
1
51
6
6
54
8
0
5431
57
2
0
17948
54
6
6
5542
5
6
7
0
18013
52
8
1
54
3
2
18125
18625
53
1
0
18470
18530
18308
53
3
2
5374
18064
1
8
5
3
8
56
9
7
53
9
7
18123
18639
18523
55
9
0
18175
18744
18325
18
6
5
1
55
6
7
54
3
8
55
2
7
5380
55
5
6
5595
52
2
6
17924
1834
8
18005
18011
18717
54
6
7
18640
18244
18008
52
7
1
1855
4
53
3
3
18133
54
3
1
52
7
0
55
3
4
52
7
7
54
8
1
18094
18058
1
8
0
2
1
52
5
3
18667
55
2
4
52
6
5
18
6
5
4
54
9
5
52
7
2
55
7
8
55
2
6
1864
6
54
8
7
18707
18205
18025
17
9
5
0
53
2
2
53
1
1
53
3
2
18119SW
Belmore
Ave
Luce Ln
Tree St
SW
F e r n b rook Way
SW
Pilkington
Rd
SW
Tualata
Ave
Pi
l
k
i
n
g
t
o
n
R
d
Koderra Ave
Kenny S t
SW Tree St
SW Siletz Ct
Tualata Ln
Dunmire Dr
SW Chinook Ct
SW Tualata Ct
SW Kenny St
Annexation to the City of Lake Oswego
AN 25-0001/Ordinance 2958
³
2/12/2025
Lake Oswego
City Limits
Subject
Property
Attachment A
Tax Lot ID:21E18DC05400
City of Lake Oswego:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN = R-10, Residential Low Density
ZONING = R-10, Residential Low Density
Clackamas County:
ZONING = R-10, Urban Residential Low Density
R-10
0 100 200 300 400 500 60050
Feet
R-7.5
R-7.5
R-10
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 1 OF 15
ATTACHMENT B
Criteria, Findings, Conclusion, and Effective Date
APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
A. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Boundary Changes; Mergers and Consolidations.
1. ORS 222.111(2) Authority and Procedure for Annexation; Specifying Tax Rate in Annexed Territory.
2. ORS 222.120(1, 3) Procedure for Annexation Without Election; Hearing; Ordinance Subject to
Referendum.
3. ORS 222.125 - Annexation by Consent of All Owners of Land and Majority of Electors; Proclamation
of Annexation.
B. Metro Code.
1. 3.09.030 (A-C) Notice Requirements
2. 3.09.040(A)(1-4) Requirements for Petitions.
3. 3.09.050 Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions Other Than Expedited Decisions
C. Comprehensive Plan - Urbanization Chapter
1. Policy A-3: “The Urban Services Boundary (as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Map) is the area
within which the City shall be the eventual provider of the full range of urban services.”
2. Policy C-3: “Ensure that annexation of new territory or expansion of Lake Oswego’s Urban Services
Boundary does not detract from the City’s ability to provide services to existing City residents.”
3. Policy C-4: “Prior to the annexation of non-island properties, ensure urban services are available and
adequate to serve the subject property or will be made available in a timely manner by the City or a
developer, commensurate with the scale of the proposed development.”
4. Policy D-3: “Enter into and maintain an Urban Growth Management Agreement with Clackamas
County for lands within the Urban Services Boundary to … (g) “Promote orderly annexation of
territory.”
D. Comprehensive Plan – Complete Neighborhoods and Housing (Statewide Goal 10)
Policy B-1: “Provide and maintain zoning and development regulations that allow the opportunity to
develop an adequate supply and variety of housing types, and that accommodate the needs of
existing and future Lake Oswego residents.”
E. OAR 660-008-0010 - Allocation of Buildable Land
FINDINGS:
A. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Boundary Changes; Mergers and Consolidations.
1. ORS 222.111(2) Authority and Procedure for Annexation Specifying Tax Rate in Annexed Territory.
ORS 222.111(2) provides that a proposal for annexation of territory to a City may be initiated by the legislative body
of the City, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative body of the City by owners of real property in the
territory to be annexed. The owners of this property have petitioned the City for this annexation. The proposed
annexation complies with this statute.
2. ORS 222.120 Procedure for Annexation Without Election; Hearing; Ordinance Subject to Referendum.
ORS 222.120(1, 3) states that an election need not be held on the question of annexation to the electors of the city
for their approval or rejection if the legislative body provides for a duly noticed public hearing before the legislative
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 2 OF 15
body at which time the electors of the City may appear and be heard on the question of annexation.
The City has provided written notification of this annexation by publishing a notice once each week for two
consecutive weeks prior to the day of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and posted the
notice of public hearing in four public places in the city as required under ORS 222.120(3). The notice was published
in the Lake Oswego Review and was posted at the City Hall, the Adult Community Center, Operations Center and the
City Library. A notice was also posted on the site on March 12, 2025. The notice contained information about the
affected territory, time and place of the public hearing and the means by which any person can obtain a copy of the
written report. The annexation notification and review procedures comply with this statute.
3. ORS 222.125 - Annexation by Consent of All Owners of Land and Majority of Electors; Proclamation of
Annexation.
ORS 222.125 states that an election need not be held on the question of annexation within the area proposed to be
annexed if all of the owners of land in the territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors, if any, residing in the
territory consent in writing to the annexation. The subject property (Tax Lot 5400) is vacant. The dwelling was
recently demolished through Clackamas County. The owners of the property have consented to this annexation. The
proposed annexation complies with this statute.
B. Metro Code
1 3.09.030 – Notice Requirements
A. The notice requirements apply to all boundary change decisions by a reviewing entity except
expedited decisions made pursuant to MC 3.09.045. These requirements apply in addition to, and do not
supersede applicable requirements of ORS Chapters 197, 198, 221 and 222 and any city or county charter
provision on boundary changes.
B. Within 45 days after a reviewing entity determines that a petition is complete, the entity shall set
a time for deliberations on a boundary change. The reviewing entity shall give notice of its proposed
deliberations by mailing notice to all necessary parties 1, by weatherproof posting of notice in the general
vicinity of the affected territory and by publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the
affected territory. Notice shall be mailed and posted at least 20 days prior to the date of deliberations.
Notice shall be published as required by state law.
C. The notice requirements in Subsection B shall:
1. Describe the affected territory in a manner that allows certainty;
2. State the date, time and place where the reviewing entity will consider the boundary
change; and
3. State the means by which any person may obtain a copy of the reviewing entity’s report
on the proposal
The City has provided written notification of this annexation to necessary parties (mailed notice), to the
general vicinity (posting of the notice of annexation on this property on March 12, 2025), and by publishing
notice to the Lake Oswego Review, a newspaper of general circulation in the city. All notices were given at
least 20 days prior to the date of the public hearing for annexation as required under MC 30.09.030 B. The
notices contained information about the affected territory, the time and place of the public hearing, and the
means by which any person can obtain a copy of the written report. The annexation notification and review
procedures comply with the Metro code requirements.
1 “Necessary party” means “county; city; district whose jurisdictional boundary or adopted urban service area
includes any part of the affected territory or who provides any urban service to any portion of the affected territory;
Metro; or any other unit of local government." Metro Code 3.09.020(J).
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 3 OF 15
2. 3.09.040 - Requirements for Petitions.
(A) A petition for a boundary change must contain the following information:
1. The jurisdiction of the reviewing entity to act on the petition;
2. A map and a legal description of the affected territory in the form prescribed by the reviewing
entity;
3. For minor boundary changes, the names and mailing addresses of all persons owning property
and all electors within the affected territory as shown in the records of the tax assessor and
county clerk; and,
4. For boundary changes under ORS 198.855 (3), 198.857, 222.125 or 222.170, statements of
consent to the annexation signed by the requisite number of owners or electors.
The above information was submitted as required by Metro Code. The property owners have signed the
application and petition. The property (TL 05400) is vacant, there are no electors residing on the property. A
map and legal description in the form required by the City have been included in the application materials
and are on file. The property owners have consented to the annexation on the annexation petition, meeting
the consent requirements of ORS 222.125. The annexation petition complies with the Metro code
requirements.
3. 3.09.050(B, D) Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions Other Than Expedited Decisions
3.09.045(D, E) Expedited Decisions (criteria incorporated for non-expedited decisions by MC 3.09.050(D))
B. Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a hearing a report shall be available to the public
that addresses the criteria identified in subsection (D) and includes the following information: 1. The
extent to which urban services are available to serve the affected territory, including any extra territorial
extensions of service; 2. Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the
affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party; and 3. The proposed effective date of
the boundary change.
These findings meet subsection B.
3.09.045 Expedited Decision
D. To approve a boundary change through an expedited process, the city shall:
1. Find that the change is consistent with expressly applicable provisions in:
a. Any applicable urban service agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065
The City has entered into ORS 195.065 agreements with: 1) Lake Grove Park District (Lake Oswego
School District) and 2) Lake Grove Fire District.
Lake Grove Park District (Lake Oswego School District): The City and the Lake Oswego School District
entered into an ORS 195.065 urban service agreement for park services in July, 2003. The School
District operates the Lake Grove Swim Park located at 3800 Lakeview Boulevard. The agreement
states that the annexation of property by the City within the Lake Grove Park District (which funds
the swim park) shall not cause the withdrawal of the property from the district.
Lake Grove Fire District: The City and District entered into an ORS 195.065 urban service agreement
for fire protection in July, 2003. The agreement states that upon annexation of property within the
district by the City, the annexed property shall be withdrawn from the District and the City shall
provide fire protection services. This property is within the boundary of the Lake Grove Fire District
#57 and the annexation will withdraw this property from that District.
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 4 OF 15
The proposed annexation is consistent with these agreements.
b. Any applicable annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205.
There are no applicable annexation plans adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205 relating to the affected
territory.
c. Any applicable cooperative planning agreement adopted pursuant to ORS
195.020(2) between the affected entity and a necessary party.
There are no ORS 195.020(2) cooperative agreements (which relate to special districts) between the
city and a necessary party.
d. Any applicable public facility plan adopted pursuant to a statewide planning goal
on public facilities and services.
Consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities) and the Community Health and Public
Safety Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the City maintains a Public Facilities Plan (PFP).
The PFP consists of master plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, and stormwater facilities, which
provide the basis for long-range planning for both the incorporated and unincorporated lands within
Lake Oswego’s Urban Services Boundary (USB). The PFP is comprised of the Lake Oswego
Transportation System Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, Water System Master Plan, and Clean
Streams (Stormwater) Plan, pursuant to Statewide Planning Goals 11 (Public Facilities) and 12
(Transportation).
Wastewater Master Plan: Sanitary sewer service is available from an 8-inch collection line located in
Pilkington Road along the site frontage that will be able to provide service to this site. (No sanitary
sewer service is currently available on its Kenny Street frontage.)
The City requires sanitary sewer extensions to be taken to the upstream property line when a
property proposes to connect. In this case, the sewer will not be required to be extended to the east
boundary of the site along Kenny Street because the City Wastewater Master Plan shows a future
public main extension coming from the east and terminating near the east portion of this site, with a
gap to Pilkington Road. Therefore, this site will be allowed to connect to the existing public sanitary
sewer main located in Pilkington Road without being required to construct any public sewer main
extension in Kenny Street.
For connection of the sanitary sewer to this property, a mainline tap and new minimum 4-inch
lateral will be required with a two-way clean-out positioned at the right-of-way line. A street
opening permit will be required for the sewer tap and work within the public right-of-way and a
plumbing permit will be required for on-site work. The on-site work will include
decommissioning the existing septic tank (removal, or filling with sand or gravel). All work would be
done by private contractors.
System Development Charge (SDC): A plumbing permit is required for connection. Using the current
Master Fees & Charges, as approved by the City of Lake Oswego effective January 1, 2025, the Sewer
SDC for a dwelling using a ¾-inch water meter is $3,607 (a 1-inch water meter is $6,014). These fees
and charges are adjusted at the beginning of each year.
Note: The Engineering Staff has preliminarily commented by memo on the development standards
that would apply for the possible future land division, which will be prepared as a part of the
preapplication conference for any land division.
The sanitary sewer service that would potentially serve this property could be provided in a manner
that is consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan.
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 5 OF 15
Water System Master Plan: The property is served by the Rivergrove Water District. There is a
Rivergrove Water District water main located on both Pilkington Road and Kenny Street along the
site frontage. The nearest existing fire hydrant is located across from the site on the southwest
corner of Pilkington Road/Kenny Street.
The City of Lake Oswego entered into an agreement with the Rivergrove Water District on February
8, 1984 for water services. The agreement stipulates that the District will continue to serve the
property upon annexation if it is capable of delivering a minimum flow of 1500 gallons per minute
with a 20 psi residual pressure during periods of peak domestic demand. The District is currently
able to meet these demands. If upon further development, this level of service is not provided, then
City water may need to be provided.
Water will be provided to this site in a manner that is consistent with the City Water System Master
Plan.
Clean Streams (Stormwater) Plan: There are no public stormwater systems in the vicinity of this
property. After annexation, on-site surface water management requirements will fall under various
provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. For example, stormwater runoff from new and/or replaced
impervious surface areas shall be managed in accordance with the City’s Stormwater Management
Code (LOC 38.25), consistent with the Clean Streams (Stormwater) Plan.
Transportation (Statewide Planning Goal 12): The City’s Transportation System Plan (TSP) implements
the multi-modal transportation system that will meet the needs of the city for a 20-year planning
horizon. Pilkington Road is a Major Collector and is under the jurisdiction and permitting authority of
the City of Lake Oswego. The nearest mass transit service is Tri-Met bus line 37, which operates
between downtown Lake Oswego and the Tigard and Beaverton Transit Centers. Service can be
accessed at the intersection of Pilkington and Jean Roads.
The City’s Transportation System Plan implements the multi-modal transportation system that will
meet the needs of the city for a 20-year planning horizon.
e. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies
Comprehensive Plan Map: This property is currently designated Low Density Residential and R-10 on
Clackamas County’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. It is designated Medium Density
Residential, R-10 on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map. As required by LOC 50.01.005.5, upon
annexation, a City zoning designation of R-10 will be automatically applied to this property.
Comprehensive Plan Policies - Urbanization: The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan contains the
following relevant language in the Urbanization chapter:
Policy A-3: “The Urban Services Boundary (as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Map) is the area
within which the City shall be the eventual provider of the full range of urban services.” This
property is within the City’s Urban Services Boundary. Therefore, the proposed annexation and the
withdrawal of this property from the identified districts is consistent with this policy.
Policy C-3: “Ensure that annexation of new territory or expansion of Lake Oswego’s Urban Services
Boundary does not detract from the City’s ability to provide services to existing City residents.”
The approval of this annexation will result in the addition of 0.44 acres to be served by the City. As
stated in Section 2(b)(1), the addition of this territory will not detract from the City’s ability to
provide police and fire protection to existing City residents. As outlined elsewhere in these findings
and the incorporated materials, annexation of this property will not affect the City’s ability to
provide parks and recreation services, sewer or water services.
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 6 OF 15
Policy C-4: “Prior to the annexation of non-island properties, ensure urban services are available and
adequate to serve this property or will be made available in a timely manner by the City or a
developer commensurate with the scale of the proposed development.”
Availability of urban services serving this property is discussed below:
Water: Water is available to serve the subject area, as detailed in subsection D.1.d.
Sewer: Sanitary sewer service is available to serve the subject area, as detailed in subsection D.1.d.
Stormwater: As detailed in subsection D.1.d, future development will be required to comply with the
City standards for stormwater management.
Fire Protection: Lake Grove Fire District #57 provides fire protection services to this property by
agreement with the City of Lake Oswego. The District has no bonded debt. Upon annexation, this
property will be withdrawn from this fire district per a July 2003 urban service agreement and will be
served directly by the City. The Jean Road Fire Station on 4555 Jean Road, located northeast of the
site, would be able to respond to emergencies under the eight-minute goal established in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Police: Upon annexation, this property will be withdrawn from the Clackamas County Enhanced
Sheriff’s Patrol District and served by the City of Lake Oswego The District has no bonded dept. The
Lake Oswego Police Department reviewed the proposal and indicated that it does not have any
concerns with serving this property upon annexation.
Parks and Open Space: The City has 629 acres of park and open space lands, or 14.6 acres per 1,000
population. The parks nearest to this property are Canal Acres/Bryant Woods Natural Park and
Pilkington Park. Canal Acres park is 31 acres and located on the north and south sides of Childs Road.
Because this is a natural park, there are no amenities for organized recreation activities. Pilkington
Park is located east of the site. It is a 3.7-acre neighborhood park and provides drop-in play fields, a
walking path and a picnic table. The City’s park system will not be overburdened by any additional
population annexed to the City with this application.
Lake Grove Park District: The Lake Grove Swim Park, managed by the Lake Oswego School District,
and funded by the Lake Grove Park District, is located at 3800 Lakeview Boulevard. The swim park is
approximately 1.3 acres in size with restroom, play and swim facilities. Per the 2003 Urban Service
Agreement, this property will remain within the Lake Grove Park District following annexation.
Library District of Clackamas County: The Library District was formed to act as the fiscal agent for the
distribution of property tax revenues raised by the District permanent rate to participating local
governments who operate public libraries within Clackamas County. This property will remain within
the Library District of Clackamas County following annexation.
Transportation - Streets and Mass Transit: Transportation infrastructure and transit service is
available to serve the subject area, as detailed in subsection D.1.d, above.
Other Urban Services: LO C 50.06.008.3 requires that all development be provided with the following
utility services: sanitary sewer, water, sidewalks, pedestrian and bicycle paths, traffic control signs
and devices, street lights, streets, and TV cable. These utilities are now in place or can be put in place
to serve this property.
In the event that future development occurs, an applicant for development is obligated to construct
all necessary public facilities to serve their development.
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 7 OF 15
Urban Growth Management Agreement
The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Urbanization Chapter, Policy D-3, calls for entering into and
maintaining an Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA) with Clackamas County for lands
within the USB.
Similarly, General Urbanization Policy 4.A.4 of the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan calls for
the establishment of Urban Growth Management Areas and Urban Growth Management
Agreements to clarify planning responsibilities between the County and cities for areas of mutual
interest. Policy 4.A.5 directs the County to establish agreements with cities and service districts to
clarify service and infrastructure responsibilities for areas of mutual interest.
In furtherance of these policies, the City and County have entered into an UGMA that stipulates a
mutual interest in coordinated land use planning, compatible comprehensive plans, and provision of
urban services and facilities.
This agreement ensures coordination and consistency between the City and County comprehensive
plans and outlines responsibilities in providing services and managing growth within the Dual
Interest Area. Subsections 6 and 7, provided below, are applicable to annexations.
“6C. City and County Notice and Coordination:
The City shall provide notification to the County, and an opportunity to participate, review
and comment, at least 35 days prior to the first public hearing on all proposed public
facilities plans, legislative changes to the City Comprehensive Plan, or quasi-judicial land use
actions adjacent to, or in close proximity to unincorporated areas. The City shall provide
notice to the County of private or City initiated annexation requests within five days of the
filing of an application with the Portland Metropolitan Boundary Commission.”
The UGMA specifies that the City notify the County of an annexation request within five days of
when it is submitted to the Boundary Commission. There is no longer a Boundary Commission for
the Portland Metropolitan area.
Staff relies on the notice requirements of Metro Code 3.09.030(B), which requires mailing notice to
all necessary parties, posting of a weatherproof notice in the general vicinity of the affected territory
and by publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected territory. Notice shall
be mailed and posted at least 20 days prior to the date of deliberations.
The notice required by MC 3.09.030 shall follow the requirements under MC 3.09.030(C), where the
notice shall describe the affected territory in a manner that allows certainty, state the date, time and
place where the reviewing entity will consider the boundary change; and, state the means by which
any person may obtain a copy of the reviewing entity’s report on the proposal. Clackamas County is a
“necessary” party under the Metro Code definition and was notified on March 12, 2025, 20 days
before the public hearing.
“7. City Annexations
A. The City may undertake annexations in the manner provided for by law within the
Dual Interest Area. The City annexation proposals shall include adjacent road right-
of-way to property proposed for annexation. The County shall not oppose such
annexations.
B. Upon annexation, the City shall assume jurisdiction of the County roads and local
access roads pursuant to a separate road transfer agreement between the City and
county.”
The City is undertaking this annexation in the manner provided for in the applicable provisions of
State Law and Metro Code for the territories that lie within the Dual Interest Area. This annexation is
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 8 OF 15
consistent with the City and County comprehensive plans, which have been coordinated in the Dual
Interest Area within the regional Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Statewide Goal 10 and Complete Neighborhoods and Housing
City Comprehensive Plan Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Chapter
The Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Chapter of the City’s Comprehensive Plan implements
Statewide Housing Goal 10 and the Portland Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-007-0000 et seq.),
which requires that the City plan for a supply of residentially zoned land with an average allowed
density of 10 dwelling units per net acre, and the opportunity to develop a mix of housing types
consisting of not less than 50% attached and multifamily dwellings.
Compliance with the State rules ensures the opportunity to provide adequate numbers of needed
housing units and the efficient use of buildable land within urban growth boundaries, while
promoting certainty in the development process to help reduce housing costs.
The following Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) provides standards for compliance with Goal 10
“Housing” pursuant to ORS 197.296 (Buildable Lands) and ORS 197.303 through 197.307 (Needed
Housing):
OAR 660-008-0010 Allocation of Buildable Land
The mix and density of needed housing is determined in the housing needs projection. Sufficient
buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type
and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local buildable lands inventory
must document the amount of buildable land in each residential plan designation.
The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Chapter, adopted
pursuant to Goal 10 and the Metropolitan Housing Rule, is designed to meet Lake Oswego’s housing
needs for not less than a twenty-year planning period. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates
residential land use designations within the City limits and within Lake Oswego’s USB through the
year 2035. The Comprehensive Plan Map’s residential land use designations are consistent with the
City’s Housing Needs Analysis 20 Year Housing Need 2023-2043 (HNA 9/21/23), also incorporated
herein by reference, and the City of Lake Oswego-Clackamas County UGMA, which specifies future
zoning of lands with the USB upon annexation to Lake Oswego. These designations match the
corresponding Zoning Map designations such that there is only one zone for each Plan designation,
and therefore only one zone that is applied to each lot upon annexation, consistent with the UGMA
and in compliance with Goal 10 and the Metropolitan Housing Rule. In the case of the subject
application, the applicable Plan Map designation and corresponding Zone Map designation is R-10.
The HNA is based on the Comprehensive Plan Map’s residential land use designations. Figure 6.3 of
the HNA, excerpted below, forecasts a citywide deficit of 642 units (86 acres), including a deficit of
192 units (38 acres) of low-density residential land, to meet the city’s housing needs by 2043.
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 9 OF 15
The proposed annexation would add 0.44 acres of low-density residential land to the City’s Buildable
Lands inventory (BLI), which would correspondingly reduce the deficit of low-density residential land
needed to meet the city’s housing needs by 2043 by 0.44 acres. The proposed annexation and
designation of City zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Map, and will help to meet
the City’s housing needs as identified by the HNA; therefore, the annexation and zone change
comply with Goal 10 and its implementing administrative rules. In this case, the zoning district would
provide the opportunity for needed housing as identified in the HNA.
The City uses the following approach for findings supporting two types of annexation zone changes:
• Option 1 is for annexation-related non-discretionary comprehensive plan and zoning map
amendments.
• Option 2 is for annexation-related discretionary comprehensive plan and zoning map
amendments.
“Non-discretionary” amendments are zoning map amendments applied to an annexed property (or
properties) where the applicable zoning designation is prescribed by the City’s Comprehensive Plan
and a zoning conversion table in the City-County UGMA. “Discretionary” amendments are where
more than one zoning designation is applicable, as prescribed by the City’s Comprehensive Plan and
the City-County UGMA, and the City Council has discretion in applying zoning.
The proposed rezoning in AN 25-0001 is non-discretionary because the zoning is prescribed by the
City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan and the zoning conversion table in the City of Lake
Oswego-Clackamas County UGMA.
The City’s R-10 zone is proposed to be applied consistent with (matching) the R-10 land use
designation in the City’s Goal 10/Metro Housing Rule-compliant comprehensive plan. The
Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-007-0035(3)) state that Lake Oswego must provide for an
overall density of ten or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. The City’s R-10 zone allows for
the development of cottage cluster developments of up to 8 dwelling units on properties meeting
the minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft., corresponding to a density of more than 34 dwelling units per
acre. The City’s R-10 zone also allows for the development of quadplexes containing 4 dwelling units
on properties meeting the minimum lot size, corresponding to a density of more than 17 dwelling
units per acre. Further, the City’s R-10 zone allows for the development of triplexes containing 3
dwelling units on properties meeting the minimum lot size, corresponding to a density of more than
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 10 OF 15
13 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the City’s R-10 zone meets the requirement to provide for an
overall density of ten or more dwelling units per net buildable acre.
The City Council does not have discretion to apply a different zone to the subject property unless it is
amending the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation; therefore, the City does not
evaluate proposed zones against its Housing Needs Analysis (HNA). The City simply applies the
zoning that is prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the Complete Neighborhoods
and Housing (Goal 10) chapter of the Plan. In doing so, the City relies on LOC 50.01.004.5.a, which
states that the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map provides for the future City zoning of all
property within the City’s Urban Service Boundary. In cases where the Comprehensive Plan Map
requires a specific zoning map designation, this designation is automatically imposed on territory
when the property is annexed to the City.
In conclusion, the proposed R-10 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and City-County
UGMA for the subject property, and the City Council does not have other zoning options from which
to choose in approving AN 25-0001.
f. Any applicable concept plan
There are no applicable concept plans in this area.
2. Consider whether the boundary change would
a. Promote the timely orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services
b. Affect the quality and quantity of urban services
c. Eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services
The proximity of this property to existing City services will allow this annexation to promote the
timely, orderly and economical extension of public facilities and services. This property can readily be
served with urban services and facilities.
If and when additional development occurs in the area, provision of public facilities and services will
occur consistent with the City’s adopted public facility master plans, ensuring that it does not
adversely affect the quality or quantity of urban services and avoiding unnecessary duplication of
facilities or services.
Therefore, this boundary change is consistent with criteria 2.a through 2.c.
E. A city may not annex territory that lies outside the UGB except it may annex a lot or parcel that
lies partially within and partially outside the UGB.
The property to be annexed is located entirely within the Metro UGB.
C. Comprehensive Plan - Urbanization Chapter
See discussion, above, under Section B.3, regarding Metro Code 3.09.045.D(1)(e), “Comprehensive Plan Policies –
Urbanization.”
D. Comprehensive Plan – Complete Neighborhoods and Housing (Statewide Goal 10)
See discussion, above, under Section B.3, regarding Metro Code 3.09.045.D(1)(e), “Comprehensive Plan Policies –
Complete Neighborhoods and Housing (Statewide Goal 10).”
E. OAR 660-008-0010 - Allocation of Buildable Land
See discussion, above, under Section B.3, regarding Metro Code 3.09.045.D(1)(e), “Comprehensive Plan Policies –
Complete Neighborhoods and Housing (Statewide Goal 10).”
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 11 OF 15
F. Resolution 19-59: Policies Discouraging Destruction of Natural Resources and Significant Trees Prior to
Annexation
Background
On March 6, 2025, staff visited the site and observed five large Douglas fir trees ranging from 32 inches in diameter
to 45 inches in diameter that were removed from the property. These are identified on the site plan of the Tree
Removal Certification Application (Exhibit D-1) as trees #11305, #11306, #11307, #11341 and 11342. Staff found that
the policies discouraging destruction of natural resources and significant trees prior to annexation (Resolution 19-59)
may apply.
These policies were adopted by the City Council in 2004 and updated in 2019. They were developed to encourage
property owners interested in applying for annexation to the City to preserve and protect natural resources and
significant trees on their property. The City has a protection program for hundreds of acres of stream corridors,
wetlands and tree groves within the City and its potential annexation area (LOC 50.05.010 and 50.07.004.8).
Properties that are not yet annexed to the City are under the jurisdiction of a county (Clackamas, Multnomah, or
Washington County). Because the City has a higher level of protection for natural resources and trees than county
jurisdictions, it is the community’s interest to encourage all property owners within the potential annexation area to
protect these resources as if the property was annexed to the City.
The City can allow the property owner the opportunity to establish that the circumstances of the tree removal would
have warranted the issuance of a Type II tree removal permit under the criteria of the Lake Oswego Tree Code. If it is
found that a tree removal permit could be issued, Staff could then inform the City Council that the property owner
has complied with this policy.
If the city determines that the property owner has failed to establish that the criteria for the tree removal permit
would have been met, the City has the option to decline the annexation unless the property owner mitigates the loss
of the trees in accordance with the provisions under Resolution 19-59(4)(a-g). Should the Council choose this option,
the mitigation steps under this section are summarized below:
a. This would require the planting of mitigation trees at a 3:1 ratio of the same or similar species that are a
minimum of 3-inch caliper at the time of planting. Mitigation trees would need to be planted according to
the specification in the “City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines” and can be located:
I. Within the required setback of the future zone of the property.
II. If the city determines that there is insufficient space on the property to accommodate all of the
required mitigation trees, the property owner shall pay the appropriate fee as established in the Lake
Oswego Master Fees and Charges into the City of Lake Oswego Tree Fund.
b. Successfully maintain mitigation trees for at least 3 years prior to annexation (and replacing any trees that
die); and,
c. Commits to maintaining the mitigation trees for at two years following annexation; and
d. Pay a restoration fee into the City of Lake Oswego Tree Fund in the amount as established by the Tree Code
Fees in the City’s Master Fees and Charges.
e. The property owner shall execute a maintenance agreement with the city to ensure the trees survive for a
two-year period after the effective date of the annexation.
f. The property owner shall record a restrictive covenant against the city requiring the mitigation to be
maintained for at least two years following the effective date of the annexation in a manner consistent with
this policy.
g. The property owner shall grant and record an easement in the form approved by the city attorney allowing
the city access to and use of the property for purposes of restoring and maintaining the required mitigation
during the two-year period.
h. The property owner shall provide a bond or cash deposit or other security in a sum that is sufficient to cover
the cost of the restoration and maintenance of the required mitigation during the two-year period.
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 12 OF 15
The policy states that upon receiving an annexation petition, the City Manager will determine whether a tree of a
species and size greater than or equal to that listed below has been removed from the site with the 10-year period.
Species Common Name Size ( dbh)
Quercus garryana Oregon white oak 08"
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas- fir 18"
Thuja plicata Western red cedar 12"
Pinus Pondersosa Ponderosa pine 12"
Other Deciduous and horticultural tree species 20"
Other evergreen and conifer trees 18"
Taxus Brevifolius Western Yew 05-6"
Analysis
The analysis for the Type II county tree removal certification for unincorporated properties was conducted by staff for
this property on April 21 (Exhibit E-3). It is important to note that the City’s Unincorporated Property certification
process is typically completed prior to any tree removal and does not constitute a full evaluation or approval of an
application or permit for tree removal under the City of Lake Oswego’s Tree Code provisions.
LOC 55.02.080(1): Reason for Removal. Criterion 1 determines what the reason for removal is: development,
landscape plan, or an outgrown landscape area.
Staff Comment: The application states that the reason for removal is “Development.” The application listed five
trees that were removed, Trees #11305, #11306, #11307, #11341, and #11342, described as Douglas-firs measuring
44” DBH, 36” DBH, 18” DBH, 48” DBH, and 40” DBH, respectively. The existing condition of each of the trees (prior to
removal) was not available.
The site plan included with the submitted materials appears to illustrate the available building envelope defined by
the yard setbacks (shown in blue on the site plan in the applicant’s submittal, Exhibit D-1), but does not depict any
specific proposed building footprint (Exhibit E-2, pg. 5). Under Type II tree removal regulations, a clear-cut of the
entire building envelope for future development is not automatically permitted; removal of trees outside the
proposed building/development footprint requires an alternatives analysis as to why those trees cannot be
preserved during construction if their removal has a significant negative impact on neighborhood character and
aesthetics.
In the absence of a defined development proposal, staff can only assess the potential buildable area within the
designated envelope. The only justification provided for Criterion 1 was the statement: “Site Plan for Proposed
Development.” Based on the information provided, staff finds that sufficient buildable area appears to be available
within the envelope to allow for development without necessitating the removal of all five trees; however, it
depends on the type of development proposed (e.g., a single-family dwelling vs. middle housing development).
Additionally, staff notes that Tree #11341 is located outside of the illustrated building envelope and may not have
qualified for removal under the development-related parameters of Criterion 1, depending on the proposal. Due to
the lack of specific information regarding the scope of development, staff cannot determine whether the removal of
Trees #11305, #11306, #11307, #11341, and #11342 would meet Criterion 1.
LOC 55.02.080(2): Erosion, Surface Water, and Windbreak Impacts. Criterion 2 determines where there is a
significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks from the proposed removals.
Staff Comment: Staff reported that the applicant did not indicate any impacts, but merely stated: “None of these
apply” in the “explanation” portion of the question. Using LO-Maps, staff was able to determine that the property is
generally flat, contains no surface water, and there is no indication of soil stability concerns related to removal of
trees.
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 13 OF 15
Following a site visit, the City’s consulting arborist assessed the potential impacts of tree removals on adjacent trees
and existing windbreaks. The evaluation found that the recent removal of five Douglas-fir trees has not resulted in
significant negative impacts to the protection or health of adjacent trees. Although the removals have slightly
exposed the crowns of nearby trees, this exposure does not occur on the southwest side where predominant
storm winds originate. The remaining trees consist mainly of similarly sized Douglas-fir trees that exhibit healthy
characteristics, including favorable height-to-diameter and live crown ratios, and only minor crown asymmetry.
Importantly, the removed trees were not providing critical wind protection or structural support for the remaining
trees.
To minimize impacts to potentially interconnected root systems during future development, the consulting arborist
recommends that the stumps remain in place. If desired, stumps may be ground below grade. Should stump removal
be necessary, the arborist advises that removal be performed under the direct supervision of a qualified arborist.
This ensures careful excavation and root severance with minimal disturbance to the root systems of adjacent trees.
Based on the materials available at the time of this analysis, and the on-site evaluation of the remaining trees on
site, staff can determine that the removal of all five trees would have met Criterion 2.
LOC 55.02.080(3): Neighborhood Character or Aesthetics Impacts. Criterion 3 addresses whether the tree removals
would cause significant negative impacts to the neighborhood character and aesthetics by the removal of (a) a
“significant tree,” (b) altering the distinctive features of the neighborhood skyline as viewed from all public streets
and properties within 300 ft. of the property, (c) removal of a visual screen between differing zones, (d) removal of
street trees, or (e) removal of greater than 50% of a stand. If the trees are individually found to be significant, which
is defined in the code, or found to meet the other sub-criterion, then the Exceptions portion of Criterion 3 must be
met to be approved for removal.
Staff Comment: Staff finds that although the trees are all over 15-inches in diameter and non-invasive, there is no
way to determine if all five of the trees met the “healthy” (which includes trees in both fair and good condition)
portion of the definition of “significant.” The applicant identified Trees #11305, #11341, and #11342 as being in fair
condition, and Trees #11306 and #11307 as being in poor condition. However, this cannot be independently verified,
as the trees have already been removed. Therefore, staff must assume they were all in at least fair condition and
then also determine whether any of the trees meet the remaining criteria for significance, specifically whether they
are unique in size, species, or character within the context of the neighborhood. Following a site visit and a review of
historical Google Street View imagery, staff observed that the removed trees appeared to have been of average size
compared to other trees in the neighborhood. Douglas-fir trees are not a unique species in this neighborhood and
the site is similar in character to others in the neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood is dominated by mature
Douglas-fir trees of similar size. Bigleaf maple also seems quite common, as well as invasive black locust and sweet
cherry. Many properties also have smaller ornamental trees and shrubs for landscaping. Additionally, all five trees
were located on the interior of the lot and did not appear to contribute to a defining feature of the neighborhood.
Removal of these trees would not constitute removal of the last tree on the site. The remaining trees are
predominately mature Douglas-fir trees of similar size, with an average diameter of approximately 36” DBH. The
Douglas firs are in generally good condition, although several along the Pilkington Road frontage have substantial ivy
infestation and Tree #11224 had several large red ring rot conks. In addition to the Douglas fir trees, there is a dense
group of Oregon white oaks in generally good condition along the south property boundary. The other trees are
small and in fair to poor condition including one invasive sweet cherry (just 5-inch DBH) and a 10-inch ash in the
building envelope and one invasive English hawthorn, two flowering plums, and three small bigleaf maples with poor
structure all amongst the large firs on the west side of the site near Pilkington. The notes on the plan indicate that
Tree #11209 fell during a storm, but a snag remains as the trunk broke off at approximately 15-feet.
Based on this assessment, staff would likely not have deemed any of the five trees a “significant tree” on an
individual basis per Criterion 3(a). Per Criterion 3(b), potential alterations to the neighborhood skyline or its
distinctive visual character can only be evaluated by comparing current site photos with historical imagery from
surrounding streets and properties.
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 14 OF 15
After reviewing the current condition of the site alongside Google Street View images from prior years (Exhibit E-3),
staff does not find that the removal of these trees resulted in a significant negative impact on the neighborhood
skyline or overall aesthetics.
In addition, the trees were not providing screening between dissimilar zones per Criterion 3(c), they were not street
trees per Criterion 3(d), the removal of the five trees does not appear to be greater than 50% of a stand of trees per
Criterion 3(e). Staff has determined that this application would have met Criterion 3, without having to address the
Exception criterion.
Conclusion
Overall, the Type II Tree removal certification report finds that Type II Criteria 2 and 3 would have been met, but
additional information is necessary to determine compliance with Criterion 1. This is because the applicant provided
a generalized building envelope defined by the setbacks (outlined in blue in Exhibit E-2), instead of a specific
development plan allowable under the base zone.
Since the trees were not deemed significant, meeting the requirements for Criterion 1 would likely have been
feasible. Based on the limited tree removal mainly within the building area on the site and retention of many other
large firs, it appears that the applicant’s intent was to remove trees in for future development rather than to
indiscriminately clear-cut the site or damage natural resources in violation of the annexation policy.
If the Council decides to approve the annexation request, staff recommends that the applicant be required to
mitigate the removal of the five trees by replanting at a minimum 1:1 ratio with a mix of native species
of medium to large stature to complement the existing Douglas-firs and oaks on the site. All mitigation trees should
be carefully planted to avoid conflicts with future development on the site.
The Council has the following decision options:
1. Annex the property and require no mitigation.
2. Annex the property and require mitigation normally required in the Type II tree removal application by
replanting at a minimum 1:1 ratio with a mix of native species prior to the final building inspection for any
dwelling on the site. All mitigation trees shall be carefully planted to avoid conflicts with future development
on the site.
3. Delay annexation of the property for a period of three years and require replacement of the trees at a 3:1
ratio in accordance with the provisions under Resolution 19-59(4)(a-g).2
CONCLUSION:
Based on the criteria and findings set forth above, the City Council concludes that AN 25-0001 can be made
to comply with all applicable criteria and the annexation should be approved. Staff recommends the Council
require mitigation as a condition of approval under Option 2, above.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
A. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance. Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter, Section 35.C., the
ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day after its enactment.
B. Effective Date of Annexation. Following the filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State
as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall be effective upon the later of:
1. the 30th day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or
2. the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State;
2 Note that the annexation policy should not be construed as preventing the Council from exercising its full discretionary authority
in granting or denying petitions for annexation as otherwise permitted by Oregon law.
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 15 OF 15
provided however that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the annexation as established
above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or general election or after the deadline for filing
notice of election before any other election held by any City, district or other municipal corporation involved
in the area to be annexed, the annexation shall become effective on the day after the election.
DIGITALLY SIGNED
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 1 OF 1
Tree Removal
Certification
(Unincorporated Properties)
Fee:
Date:
Intake Staff:
As provided for in Resolution 19-59, Policies Discouraging Destruction of Natural Resources and Significant Trees Prior
to Annexation, this application process allows unincorporated property owners to certify that proposed tree removal
would qualify for a Lake Oswego Tree Removal Permit if the property were within the City’s boundaries. This
certification process does not constitute a permit granting approval of the tree removal. The property owner is
responsible for obtaining any permits that may be required from the County with jurisdiction over the property.
Applicant: Phone:
E-mail (required):
Property Owner: Phone:
E-mail:________________________________________
Address of Tree Removal Site:
Are any of the trees in the public right-of -way? Yes No
Number, Size (Trunk Diameter), & Type of Tree(s) to be Removed:
Reason for Removal:
I grant permission to City of Lake Oswego employees to enter the above property to inspect the trees requested for
removal. I agree to restrain any dog(s) on inspection day.
Signature of Property Owner (required) Signature of Applicant (required if different)
TYPE I Submit: (1) Site plan (8½ x 11”), (2) Printed photograph of tree(s)
TYPE II Submit: (1) Site plan (8½ x 11”), (2) Type II Checklist, (3) Landscape plan (if applicable)
To Do: (1) Mark tree(s) with ribbon
DEAD Submit: (1) Site plan (8½ x 11”), (2) Printed photograph of tree(s)
Deciduous trees require a site visit by staff between November 1st and April 15th.
To Do: Mark the tree(s) with ribbon if a site visit is required
HAZARDOUS Submit: (1) Site plan (8½ x 11”), (2) Printed photograph of tree,
(3) Hazard Evaluation Form completed by a Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Arborist
To Do: Mark tree(s) with ribbon if a site visit is required
EMERGENCY Submit: (1) Site plan (8½ x 11”), (2) Printed photographs of tree(s) and emergency condition
Invasive Submit (1) Site plan (8½ x 11”), (2) Printed photograph of tree(s) that clearly identify each
species of tree to be removed (e.g., overall photo of tree, close ups of leaves, bark or
other identifying features – See Invasive Species Identification Guide)
For City Staff Use Only
Review Staff:
Recognized Neighborhood Assoc.:
Certification of Tree Removal: Would Qualify for Removal Would Not Qualify for Removal Withdrawn
Certification Date:_______________________
(Save completed application in Planning Staff Resources/Trees/County_Tree_Removal_Certifications)
l:\forms\applctns\tree permit apps\County Tree Certification FormAN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-2/PAGE 1 OF 5
SITE PLAN EXAMPLE FOR TREE REMOVAL CERTIFICATION
A site plan is required as part of your tree removal certification request. The site plan must be on 8.5” x 11” size
paper.
ITEMS TO INCLUDE ON YOUR SITE PLAN:
Your property lines
Address of the Tree Removal Site
Public Right Of Way (Include Street Name)
House or other Structures (Mark “Vacant” if
none)
Creeks, Streams, or Lakes that run through or
border property
Location, Diameter Size and Type of Trees
proposed for removal; mark trees to be removed
with an “X”
The site plan may be hand-drawn or you can print out
a site plan using LOMaps at the following link:
www.lakeoswego.city/LOMap. In LOMaps, type your
address in the search box in the upper right side of
the screen or use the zoom tool to zoom in on your
property. Once you have zoomed in on your property,
click on “T” for tools at the top of the screen and
select “print.”
Staff Review Comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
Lakeview Boulevard
ROW ROW
18” Maple
14” Maple
14” Walnut
(hazard, see hazard
evaluation form)
Laurel Hedge (to be pruned)
10” Cherry
123 Lakeview Blvd.
16” Oak
Replant w/ 2
1.5” red oaks
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-2/PAGE 2 OF 5
Page 1 of 3
TYPE II APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Criteria for Issuance of a Type II Tree Cutting Permit
LOC 55.02.080
A Type II permit may only be approved if your application complies with all of the criteria in LOC 55.02.080. This
checklist will assist you. City staff will review the application information and any comments received, visit the site,
and then make a tentative decision. If more information is needed after the comment period has started, staff may
then be required to restart the comment period, which will delay the initial decision. Please make sure to include
all information and evidence to avoid this possibility.
The City’s Interactive Map can be used to create the required site plan (https://www.lakeoswego.city/lomap).
1. REASON FOR REMOVAL [LOC 55.02.080(1)]
Reason for Removal: Outgrown Landscape Area Landscape Plan/Improvement Development
(check all that apply and provide additional information below or on a separate page if necessary)
Tree
No. Species*
Inches in
Diameter
Tree Condition
(Good, Fair,
Poor)
Describe Reason for Removal
(attach landscape plan and/or site plan for
proposed development, as applicable)
*Don’t know the tree species? Enter “unknown deciduous” or “unknown evergreen” and staff will attempt to identify the
species at the site visit. Note: If a tree is an invasive species, use an “invasive tree removal application” for removal.
2. EROSION, SURFACE WATER, AND WINDBREAK IMPACTS [LOC 55.02.080(2)]
Considering proposed mitigation measures, will removal have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks? Yes No
Please explain your answer (e.g., describe site topography, presence of surface waters, and whether the tree
removal would expose nearby trees to wind throw):
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-2/PAGE 3 OF 5
Page 2 of 3
3. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OR AESTHETICS IMPACTS [LOC 55.02.080(3)]
Of the trees listed in Section 1 that are greater than 15” diameter, and in good or fair health, and are not
invasive species, are any of those trees significant to the neighborhood due to size, species or distinctive
character? Yes No
Please explain your answer (e.g., is the tree one of the biggest in the neighborhood, is it an unusual or rare
species, is the tree unique in appearance and distinctive in the neighborhood, etc.):
Is the tree(s) proposed for removal the only remaining tree(s) on the property? Yes No
Will the proposed tree removal alter distinctive features or the neighborhood skyline? Yes No
Please explain your answer (e.g., is the tree prominently visible from areas within 300’ of the site, will the tree
removal create a significant change/gap to the treed skyline; photographs are strongly encouraged):
Do any of the trees proposed for removal provide a visual screen between dissimilar zoning districts, for
example between a residential and commercial zone? Yes No
Provide additional details, as needed, below:
Are any trees proposed for removal located in a public right of way? Yes No
Note: The right‐of‐way is to the lot lines, not just the edge of the traveled area of the street/alley.
Is more than 50% of a “stand” of tree proposed for removal? A “stand” is a group of trees that forms a visual
and biological unit at least 15 feet in height with a contiguous crown width of at least 120 feet.
Yes No
Please explain your answer and describe the measurement methodology used to make this determination:
EXCEPTIONS TO LOC 55.02.080(3)
If you checked “yes” for any of the questions under Section 3, above, you are required to complete the Exceptions
Section, below; if you answered “no” to all questions under Section 3, you may elect to skip to Section 4 or you can
also address an Exception as an alternative argument for removal (in case the review body disagrees).
Are any trees likely to or will continue to cause damage to a permanent, viable existing structure, or to
infrastructure (e.g., utilities or paved landscape features, etc.)? Yes No
Please explain your answer and attach evidence, such as photographs, arborist report, letter from structural
engineer, or other relevant information if such damage is not visible and it is not clear that the damage is being
caused by the tree:
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-2/PAGE 4 OF 5
Page 3 of 3
If yes, can the damage be remedied through reasonable maintenance or pruning? Yes No
Please explain your answer and attach evidence, such as an arborist report:
Have reasonable alternatives to the tree removal been considered, such as alternative site plans or placement
of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees (the alternatives must
continue to comply with other provisions of the Lake Oswego Code)? Yes No
Please explain your answer and attach any alternative plans considered and describe why they cannot be used:
4. VIEW ENHANCEMENT [LOC 55.02.080(4)]
Is the proposed tree removal for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views? Yes No
5. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER CODE SECTIONS [LOC 55.02.080(5)]
Is the proposed tree removal contrary to another section of the Lake Oswego Code (e.g., Sensitive Lands
requirement (LOC 50.05.010), prior condition of approval)? Yes No
If yes, please list code section and reasons:
6. MITIGATION [LOC 55.02.080(6) PURSUANT TO LOC 55.02.084]
Replacement trees are required for each tree removed. Minimum mitigation size: 1.5 inch caliper for
deciduous and 6 feet tall for evergreen. The mitigation plan must be approved prior to permit issuance and
those trees will be inspected in the field. Indicate if any of the following apply:
Native trees on the City’s Master Plant List are proposed for removal. If so, mitigation trees must also
be a native species.
“Significant” trees (per Section 3 above) are proposed for removal for development purposes. If so, two
mitigation trees are required for each significant tree removed.
Removal is for the landscaping purpose of thinning to improve the health of other trees. If so,
mitigation shall be reduced to the extent there is insufficient space to replant elsewhere on the site and
maintain tree health. Please explain below.
There is insufficient space to plant one or more mitigation trees on‐site. I request that staff verify this
and allow replanting off‐site on another property I own or to pay a fee into the Tree Fund in lieu of
planting. Please explain below.
List the proposed mitigation tree(s) species and show their locations, sizes, and species on the site plan.
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-2/PAGE 5 OF 5
503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
TO: Paul Espe, Associate Planner
FROM: Daphne Cissell, Associate Planner
Planning and Building Services
SUBJECT: County Type II Tree Removal Certification at 5450 SW Kenny St, Lake Oswego, OR
97035
DATE: April 21, 2025
This letter is to review and certify whether, as provided for in City of Lake Oswego Resolution 19-
59, Policies Discouraging Destruction of Natural Resources and Significant Trees Prior to
Annexation, the five Douglas-fir trees removed at the above-referenced address would or would
not qualify for City Type II Tree Removal criteria per LOC 55.02.080 if the property were within the
City’s boundaries.
Please note that, as stated above, these trees were removed prior to the submission of this
certification application. Therefore, this analysis is based on what staff could determine from a
site visit, current photographs, Google Street View images (Exhibit 2), and the County Type II
Tree Removal Certification application submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 1). LOC 55.02.080
outlines specific criteria that must be met for approval prior to tree removal. Staff will address
these criteria below and indicate whether they would have been met, based on the available
materials at the time of analysis.
LOC 55.02.080(1): Reason for Removal.
Criterion 1 determines what the reason for removal is: development, landscape plan, or an
outgrown landscape area. The application states that the reason for removal is “Development.”
The application listed five trees that were removed, Trees #11305, #11306, #11307, #11341, and
#11342, described as Douglas-firs measuring 44” DBH, 36” DBH, 18” DBH, 48” DBH, and 40” DBH,
respectively. The existing condition of each of the trees (prior to removal) was not available.
The site plan included with the submitted materials appears to illustrate the available building
envelope created by yard setbacks (shown in blue), but does not depict any specific proposed
building footprint (Exhibit 1, pg. 5). Under Type II tree removal regulations, a clear-cut of the
entire building envelope for future development is not automatically permitted; removal of
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 1 OF 16
Page 2 of 4
trees outside the proposed building/development footprint requires an alternatives analysis as
to why those trees cannot be preserved during construction if their removal has a significant
negative impact on neighborhood character and aesthetics.
In the absence of a defined development proposal, staff can only assess the potential buildable
area within the designated envelope. The only justification provided for Criterion 1 was the
statement: “Site Plan For Proposed Development.” Based on the information provided, staff
finds that there appears to be sufficient buildable area within the envelope to allow for
development without necessitating the removal of all five trees; however, it depends on the
type of development proposed (e.g., a single-family dwelling vs. middle housing development).
Additionally, staff notes that Tree #11341 is located outside of the illustrated building envelope
and may not have qualified for removal under the development-related parameters of Criterion
1, depending on the proposal.
Due to the lack of specific information regarding the scope of development, staff cannot
determine whether the removal of Trees #11305, #11306, #11307, #11341, and #11342 would
meet Criterion 1.
LOC 55.02.080(2): Erosion, Surface Water, and Windbreak Impacts.
Criterion 2 determines where there is a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of
surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks from the proposed removals.
The applicant did not indicate any impacts, but merely stated: “None of these apply” in the
explanation portion of the question (Exhibit 1, pg. 2).
Using LOMaps, staff was able to determine that the property is generally flat, contains no
surface waters, and with no indication of soil stability concerns related to removal of trees.
Following a site visit, the City’s consulting arborist assessed the potential impacts of tree
removals on adjacent trees and existing windbreaks. The evaluation found that the recent
removal of five Douglas-fir trees has not resulted in significant negative impacts to the
protection or health of adjacent trees. Although the removals have slightly exposed the crowns
of nearby trees, this exposure does not occur on the southwest side—where predominant
storm winds originate. The remaining trees consist mainly of similarly sized Douglas-firs that
exhibit healthy characteristics, including favorable height -to-diameter and live crown ratios,
and only minor crown asymmetry. Importantly, the removed trees were not providing critical
wind protection or structural support for the remaining trees.
To minimize impacts to potentially interconnected root systems during future development,
the consulting arborist recommends that the stumps remain in place. If desired, stumps m ay be
ground below grade. Should stump removal be necessary, the arborist advises that removal be
performed under the direct supervision of a qualified arborist. This ensures careful excavation
and root severance with minimal disturbance to the root systems of adjacent trees.
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 2 OF 16
Page 3 of 4
Based on the materials available at the time of this analysis, and the on-site evaluation of the
remaining trees on site, staff can determine that the removal of all five trees would have met
Criterion 2.
LOC 55.02.080(3): Neighborhood Character or Aesthetics Impacts.
Criterion 3 addresses whether the tree removals would cause significant negative impacts to the
neighborhood character and aesthetics by the removal of (a) a “significant tree,” (b) altering the
distinctive features of the neighborhood skyline as viewed from all public streets and properties
within 300 ft. of the property, (c) removal of a visual screen between differing zones, (d) removal
of street trees, or (e) removal of greater than 50% of a stand. If the trees are individually found to
be significant, which is defined in the code, or found to meet the other sub-criterion, then the
Exceptions portion of Criterion 3 must be met to be approved for removal.
Staff finds that although the trees are all over 15” in diameter and non-invasive, there is no way to
determine if all five of the trees met the “healthy” (which includes trees in both fair and good
condition) portion of the definition of “significant.” The applicant identified Trees #11305,
#11341, and #11342 as being in fair condition, and Trees #11306 and #11307 as being in poor
condition. However, this cannot be independently verified, as the trees have already been
removed. Therefore, staff must assume they were all in at least fair condition and then also
determine whether any of the trees meet the remaining criteria for significance —specifically,
whether they are unique in size, species, or character within the context of the neighborhood.
Following a site visit and a review of historical Google Street View imagery, staff observed that
the removed trees appeared to have been of average size compared to other trees in the
neighborhood and Douglas-fir trees are not of a unique species in this neighborhood; the site is
similar in character to others in the neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood is dominated
by mature Douglas-firs of similar size. Bigleaf maple also seems quite common, as well as
invasive black locust and sweet cherry. Many properties also have smaller ornamental trees and
shrubs for landscaping.
Additionally, all five trees were located on the interior of the lot and did not appear to
contribute to a defining feature of the neighborhood. Removal of these trees would not
constitute removal of the last tree on the site; the remaining trees are predominately mature
Douglas-firs of similar size, with an average diameter of approximately 36” DBH. The Douglas -
firs are in generally good condition, although several along the Pilkington fronta ge have
substantial ivy infestation and Tree #11224 had several large red ring rot conks. In addition to
the Douglas-firs, there is a dense group of Oregon white oaks in generally good condition along
the south property boundary. The other trees are small and in fair to poor condition including
one invasive sweet cherry (just 5” DBH) and a 10” ash in the building envelope and one invasive
English hawthorn, two flowering plums, and three small bigleaf maples with poor structure all
amongst the large firs on the west side of the site near Pilkington. The notes on the plan
indicate that Tree #11209 fell during a storm, but a snag remains as the trunk broke off at about
15 feet or so (Exhibit 3).
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 3 OF 16
Page 4 of 4
Based on this assessment, staff would likely not have deemed any of the five trees a “significant
tree” on an individual basis per Criterion 3(a).
Per Criterion 3(b), potential alterations to the neighborhood skyline or its distinctive visual
character can only be evaluated by comparing current site photos with historical imagery f rom
surrounding streets and properties. After reviewing the current condition of the site alongside
Google Street View images from prior years (Exhibit 2, pgs. 2-6), staff does not find that the
removal of these trees resulted in a significant negative impact on the neighborhood skyline or
overall aesthetics.
In addition, the trees were not providing screening between dissimilar zones per Criterion 3(c),
they were not street trees per Criterion 3(d), the removal of the five trees does not appear to be
greater than 50% of a stand of trees per Criterion 3(e).
Staff has determined that this application would have met Criterion 3, without having to address
the Exception criterion.
Conclusion and Recommendation:
Overall, staff finds that Type II criteria would have been met for Criteria 2 and 3. However,
additional information is necessary to determine compliance with Criterion 1, specifically
regarding the proposed development and the justification for tree removal within the entire
building envelope. That said, since the trees were not deemed significant, meeting the
requirements for Criterion 1 would likely have been feasible. Based on the limited tree removal
mainly within the building area on the site and retention of many other large firs, it appears
that the applicant’s intention was to remove trees in anticipation of future development, rather
than to completely clear-cut the site or damage natural resources. If the Council decides to
approve the annexation request, staff recommends that the applicant be required to mitigate
the removal of the five trees by replanting at a minimum 1:1 ratio, using a mix of native species
of medium to large stature, to complement the existing Douglas-firs and oaks on the site. All
mitigation trees should be carefully planted to avoid conflicts with future development on the
site.
It is important to note that the county certification process is typically completed prior to any
tree removal and does not constitute a full evaluation or approval of an application or permit
for tree removal under the City of Lake Oswego’s Tree Code provisions.
Daphne Cissell
Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS
1.Exhibit 1 County Type II Tree Removal Certification application;
2.Exhibit 2 Photos and Google Images;
3.Exhibit 3 5450 Kenny St Tree Survey
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 4 OF 16
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 5 OF 16
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 6 OF 16
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 7 OF 16
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 8 OF 16
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 9 OF 16
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 10 OF 16
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 11 OF 16
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 12 OF 16
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 13 OF 16
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 14 OF 16
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 15 OF 16
AN 25-0002 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 16 OF 16
RESOLUTION 19-59
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING THE POLICIES
DISCOURAGING DESTRUCTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND SIGNIFICANT TREES PRIOR TO
ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, the "Policies Discouraging Destruction of Natural Resources and Significant Trees Prior
to Annexation" (the "Policies") were originally adopted by Resolution 04-38 on May 18, 2004; and
WHEREAS, it has been over 15 years since the Policies were adopted, and the City Council finds
that the timeframe for the applicability of the policies should be revised from the effective date
of the original Policies to a more limited timeframe; and
WHEREAS, updates are needed to reflect code changes that have occurred since the Policies were
originally adopted and to better assure any required mitigation will not conflict with future
development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1.The "Policies Discouraging Destruction of Natural Resources and Significant Trees
Prior to Annexation" are amended as shown on attached Exhibit A (new text balded and double
underlined. deleted text shown with strikethrough).
Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption.
Considered and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on
the 3rd day of December 2019.
AYES: Mayor Studebaker, Manz, O'Neill, LaMotte, Nguyen, Wendland, Kohlhoff
NOES: None
EXCUSED:None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Resolution 19-59
Page 1 of 2
Kent Studebaker, Mayor
���Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 1 OF 15
David Powell, City Attorney
Resolution 19-59
Page 2 of 2
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 2 OF 15
RESOLUTION 19-59
EXHIBIT A
Proposed revisions are shown in strikeout for deleted text and bold. double-underline for new text.
Comment boxes are included explaining the rationale for the revisions. The formatting and comment
boxes will be removed for the final draft of the Resolution.
POLICIES DISCOURAGING DESTRUCTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND SIGNIFICANT TREES
PRIOR TO ANNEXATION
Purpose: To encourage property owners interested in petitioning the City for annexation
to preserve and protect natural resources and significant trees prior to
annexation.
Background: The City of Lake Oswego has inventoried, evaluated, mapped and developed a
protection program for hundreds of acres of stream corridors, wetlands and
tree groves within its planning area (LOC Article 50.1650.05.010 and
50.07.004.8). This planning area includes lands outside the City limits but
within the City's Urban Services Boundary. In this unincorporated area, the City
and other jurisdictions have agreed that the City is the most logical future
provider of urban services and, according to state law, should plan for land use
and transportation needs in those areas. It is anticipated that, at some point in
the future, properties within the City's Urban Services Boundary will eventually
seek annexation, typically for future development purposes or to receive City
services.
Staff Comment: This change updates the reference to the Sensitive Lands code section, which
was renumbered when the CDC was reorganized in 2012.
On several occasions, the City has received petitions to annex properties
within the unincorporated areas of the Urban Service Boundary on which trees
have been cut, vegetation removed and streams degraded. Although these
actions may not have been regulated by the County, in some cases they would
violate City natural resource protection requirements.
Removal of natural resources contributes to erosion and water quality issues
resulting in degradation of wildlife habitat and siltation buildup in waterways.
When such properties are subsequently annexed, the City may become
obligated to develop programs and expend funds to mitigate the negative
effects of natural resource removal.
These types of actions gain additional importance in light of the listing of
salmon id species under the Endangered Species Act in the Tualatin and
Willamette Rivers and their tributaries, which receive stormwater runoff and
other drainage from within the City. In addition, several creeks within the
northerly portion of the unincorporated Urban Services Boundary are
tributaries of Tryon Creek, which is a fish-bearing stream. The County, the City
and private citizens should work together to ensure that their programs and
activities are "salmon safe."
Page 1 of 13 -Annexation Policies
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 3 OF 15
RESOLUTION 19-59
EXHIBIT A
Removal of significant trees, whether or not within a protected tree grove, can
have a negative effect upon aesthetics and natural processes, and should be
discouraged in areas subject to annexation unless the criteria for tree removal
under the City Code have been meet .
.!.:. Policy for parcels from which trees of a certain size and species have been removed:
The City Council declares that it will decline a petition for annexation of a
parcel pursuant to ORS 222.125 or 222.170 if a tree of a size and species listed
in the procedures below has been removed from the property within 10 years
prior to the date the annexation petition is filed with the City follo·11ing the
date of this policy under circumstances that, in the determination of the City
Manager, would not have warranted issuance of a permit for the removal of
the tree under the criteria of the Lake Oswego Tree Code, unless the property
owner:
•Mitigates for the removal of tRe each tree at a 3:1 ratio to the
satisfaction of the City Manager by planting-a tree� of the same or
similar specie!; 15 to 20 feet tall and with a trunk size of S to 12 that
are a minimum 3-inch caliper at the time of planting-G&R;-on the
sa-ffie-property� The priority locations for planting the mitigation
trees shall be within a required setback based on the Comprehensive
Plan zone designation for the property. in a legally reserved open
space or undevelopable area. or in an area that is separated from
the developable remainder of the property by an undevelopable
area or feature. in apprmEimately the same location as the remo¥ed
tfee If in the City's determination there is insufficient space on the
property to accommodate all of the required mitigation trees. the
property owner shall pay into the City of Lake Oswego Tree Fund the
Tree Mitigation Fee as established in the Lake Oswego Master Fees
and Charges for each mitigation tree that cannot be accommodated
on the property in addition to the restoration fee required. below;
•Successfully maintains the replacement tree� for at least three years
prior to annexation, and commits to maintain the mitigation for at
least two years following annexation; and
•Pays a restoration fee into the City of Lake Oswego Tree Fund in the
amount as established by the Tree Code Fees in the City's Master
Fees and Charges of the ¥alue of the remo¥edtree.
Compliance with this policy shall not be deemed to assure that the City
Council will approve the annexation petition. This policy shall not be
construed as preventing the Council from exercising its full discretionary
authority in granting or denying petitions for annexation as otherwise
permitted by Oregon law.
This policy applies to annexations that are initiated or requested by the
Page 2 of 13 -Annexation Policies
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 4 OF 15
RESOLUTION 19-59
EXHIBIT A
Staff Comment: Changes the timeframe for applicability of the policy to 10 years prior to
annexation per Council direction at the October 15, 2019 study session. Keeping the time frame
for applicability to the date of the adoption of the policy, which was May 18, 2004, creates a
longer and longer timeframe as years pass in which staff must determine whether trees were
removed from the site in violation of this policy. The change to a 10-year timeframe from the
date the annexation petition is filed provides a substantial deterrent to tree removal prior to
annexation while maintaining a reasonable timeframe in which staff can determine if trees were
removed in violation of this policy. Also changes the tree mitigation requirements to require
more mitigation trees, but with a smaller caliper inch size, in order to better assure survival and
because the availability of larger caliper mitigation trees, particularly larger caliper native trees,
is more limited. Additionally, requires mitigation trees be planted in undevelopable areas such
as setbacks or legally reserved areas, if available, rather than in the same general location that
the trees were removed from. This reduces the likelihood that the mitigation trees would need
to be removed for future development after annexation. If there is insufficient space to
accommodate all the mitigation trees on site, the resolution allows for a payment into the Tree
Fund instead. Also ties the restoration fee to the tree restoration fee as established by the City's
Master Fee and Charges instead of the value of the removed tree, which is more ambiguous.
Procedure:
owners of the property to be annexed and that require the consent of owners
or electors under ORS Chapter 222. It does not apply to annexations by
election under ORS Chapters 222 or 195 or to non-consensual "island"
annexations.
This policy applies notwithstanding the election requirements of Section 57 of
the Lake Oswego Charter, which requires a City-wide vote prior to annexation
of parcels within certain portions of the Stafford Area. If the owners of a
parcel in that area initiate or request annexation contrary to this policy, the
City Council will decline to refer the proposed annexation for a vote under
Section 57.
1.Upon receipt of an annexation petition, the City Manager will
determine whether a tree of a species and size greater than or equal to
that listed below has been removed from the site within 10 years prior
to the date the annexation petition was filed with the City follov.·ing
the date of this policy:
Species Common Name Size (dbh)
Quercus garryana Oregon white oak 08"
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 18"
Thuja plicata Western red cedar 12"
Pinus Ponderso�a Ponderosa pine 12"
Other Deciduous and horticultural tree species 20"
Other evergreen and conifer trees 18" Taxus
Brevifolius 1Nestern Yew Western YewTa><us Brevifolius 0&§"
Page 3 of 13 -Annexation Policies
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 5 OF 15
RESOLUTION 19-59
EXHIBIT A
Staff Comment: Changes the timeframe for applicability for the policy from the date of
adoption of the resolution to a 10-year timeframe from the date the annexation petition is filed.
Changes the size of the western yew that is subject to this policy from 5" to 6" DBH to reflect
the 2016 amendment to the Tree Code, which changed the size ofregulated trees from 5" to 6"
DBH.
2.If the City Manager determines that such a tree has been removed, the
City Manager shall then allow the property owner an opportunity to
establish, to the satisfaction of the City Manager, that the
circumstances of the removal would have warranted issuance of a tree
removal permit under the criteria of the Lake Oswego Tree Code.
3.If the City Manager determines that the property owner has
established that the circumstances of the removal would have
warranted issuance of a tree removal permit, the City Manager shall
inform the Council that the property owner has complied with this
policy.
4.If the City Manager determines that the property owner has failed to
establish that the criteria for a tree removal permit would have been
met, annexation shall be declined unless the property owner:
a.Plants a replacement mitigation tree� at a 3:1 ratio of the same
or a similar species (as determined by the City Manager) that are
a minimum 3-, 1S to 20 feet tall and with a trunk size of S to 12
inch caliper at the time of planting dbh, in approximately the
same location on the property as the remm,1ed tree. The height
and trunk size v.•ithin the above ranges shall be determined by
the City Manager, considering the type of tree, its gro•Nth rate,
availability of replacement trees at various sizes, and the size of
the removed tree. The priority locations for planting the
mitigation trees shall be within a required setback based on the
Comprehensive Plan zone designation for the property. in a
legally reserved open space or undevelopable area. or in an
area that is separated from the developable remainder of the
property by an undevelopable area or feature. The tree� shall
be planted according to the specifications in the City Tree
Planting and Maintenance Guidelines as approved by the City
Council�
If in the City's determination there is insufficient space on the
property to accommodate all of the required mitigation trees.
the property owner shall pay into the City of Lake Oswego Tree
Fund the Tree Mitigation Fee as established in the Lake Oswego
Master Fees and Charges for each mitigation tree that cannot
be accommodated on the property in addition to the
restoration fee required in 4 c. below;
Page 4 of 13 -Annexation Policies
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 6 OF 15
RESOLUTION 19-59
EXHIBIT A
Staff Comment: Changes the tree mitigation requirements to require more mitigation trees,
but with a smaller caliper inch size, in order to better assure survival and because the
availability of larger caliper mitigation trees, particularly larger caliper native trees, is more
limited. Additionally, requires mitigation trees to be planted in undevelopable areas such as
setbacks or legally reserved areas, if available, rather than in the same general location that the
trees were removed from. This reduces the likelihood that the mitigation trees would need to
be removed for future development after annexation. If there is insufficient space to
accommodate all the mitigation trees on site, the resolution allows for payment into the Tree
Fund instead.
b.Successfully maintains the replacement mitigation tree for at
least three years prior to annexation (Successful maintenance
includes, without limitation, immediate replacement of any
replacement tree that dies or otherwise declines during the
maintenance· period); and
c.Pays a restoration fee into the City of Lake Oswego Tree Fund in the
amount as established by the Tree Code Fees in the City's
Master Fees and Charges of the 1v<alue of the removed tree as
determined to the satisfaction of the City Manager in accordance
with the methods set forth in the "Guide for Plant Appraisal"
published by the International Society of /\rboriculture, or such
other method as may be deemed appropriate by the City Manager.
Staff Comment: Ties the restoration fee to the Tree Restoration Fee as established by the
City's Master Fee and Charges instead of the value of the removed tree, which is more
In addition to the pre-annexation requirements of Sections 4 a, 4 b and 4 c,
above, annexation of the property shall be conditioned upon the following:
d.The property owner shall execute an agreement with the City
requiring the property owner to maintain the required mitigation
(tree replacement), at his or her expense, in a manner consistent
with this policy and to the satisfaction of the City Manager for a
period of at least two years following the effective date of the
annexation. The agreement shall also provide that, if the property
owner fails to meet this obligation, the City may enter the property
to restore and maintain the mitigation at the property owner's
expense;
e.The property owner shall record a restrictive covenant against the
property, in a form approved by the City Attorney, requiring the
mitigation to be maintained for at least two years following the
effective date of the annexation in a manner consistent with this
policy and to the satisfaction of the City Manager, granting the City
the right to enforce the restrictive covenant, and allowing recovery
of attorney fees and other enforcement expense by the City;
f.The property owner shall grant and record an easement, in the form
Page 5 of 13 -Annexation Policies
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 7 OF 15
RESOLUTION 19-59
EXHIBIT A
approved by the City Attorney, allowing the City access to and use
of the property for the purposes of restoring and maintaining the
required mitigation during the two-year period; and
g.The property owner shall provide the City with a bond, cash deposit
or other security acceptable to the City Manager, in a sum deemed
by the City Manager to be sufficient to cover the costs of
restoration and maintenance of the required mitigation during the
two-year period.
5.Any person who owns property within the unincorporated portion of
the City's Urban Services Boundary and who proposes to remove a tree
may apply for certification by City staff that the proposed removal
would qualify for a Lake Oswego Tree Removal Permit if the property
were within the City's boundaries. Upon a subsequent annexation
petition, the certification shall satisfy the property owner's burden
under paragraph 2 of this policy with relation to the removal of the
tree. An applicant for a certification under this paragraph shall pay the
same fee as established for the corresponding tree removal permit.
6.The City Council will not approve annexation of property where the
requirements of this policy have not been met, unless the City Council
elects, in its discretion, to exempt the property from this policy.
!!:. Policy for parcels with resources that are inventoried er fer '.♦.'hieh a determiAatieA is
eeAdiAg:
Staff Comment: The changes to this Section II remove all references to the Lake Oswego
Natural Resource Inventory Update (NRIU) Map, which was a map that showed sites that had
been identified as potentially containing significant natural resources under Statewide Planning
Goal 5 (Natural Resources) but as of the date of adoption of Resolution 04-38 were pending a
determination of a whether a Goal 5 resource existed on the site. In 2015, the Council adopted
Ordinance 2687, which updated the City's Sensitive Lands Map and resolved all the sites that
were previously pending resource determination on the NRIU Map. As a result, it is no longer
necessary to refer to the NRIU Map for purposes of the resolution. An additional change to this
section deletes a reference to the "City's Natural Resource Coordinator" and replaces it with
"Planning Department" because the City has not had a Natural Resource Coordinator on staff for
many years and the reference should be to the department generally since staffing needs and
position titles can change.
The City Council declares that it will decline a petition for annexation of a parcel
pursuant to ORS 222.125 or 222.170 when:
(1)the parcel has previously been inventoried pursuant to the ESEE
analysis performed by the City pursuant to the requirements of Statewide
Planning Goal 5 and determined to have natural resources that would
have been protected if located within the City, or the parcel is designated
on the Lake Oswego Natural Resource Inventory Update Map as having
Page 6 of 13 -Annexation Policies
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 8 OF 15
RESOLUTION 19-59
EXHIBIT A
natural resources for which there is a pending determination as to
whether the criteria for such protection are met, and
(2) the natural resources on the parcel have been removed or otherwise
degraded beyond that which would have been clearly permitted under the
City natural resource regulations,
unless the property owner mitigates the effects of the natural resource
removal by restoring the site to the condition which would exist if the site had
complied with the City's natural resource regulations from the date of the
inventory, or from the date of designation on the Lake Oswego Natural
Resource Inventory Update Map, to the date of annexation, and unless the
mitigation is successfully maintained by the property owner for a period of at
least three years prior to annexation, and the property owner commits to
maintaining the mitigation for at least two years following annexation. If
the property owner or other applicant for annexation cannot substantiate
to the satisfaction of the City Manager the quality and quantity of natural
resources that were on the site prior to the removal or degradation, the
property owner must establish or enhance natural resources within the
mapped natural resources area to a minimum quality and quantity
determined by the City Manager, taking into consideration the data and
analysis that resulted in the designation of the mapped natural resources area
on the site.
In the case of annexation petitions for parcels with natural resources
designated on the Lake Oswego Natural Resource Inventory Update Map, an
analysis of the resources under the criteria of LOG 50.15.020 shall be
completed by City staff at the applicant's expense prior to the City Council's
consideration of the petition. If, in the determination of the City Manager, the
resources meet the criteria for protection under the City's natural resources
regulations, annexation will be declined pursuant to this policy unless
mitigation occurs as provided above. If the City Manager determines that the
resources do not meet the criteria for protection, this policy shall not apply.
Compliance with this policy shall not be deemed to assure that the City
Council will approve the annexation petition. This policy shall not be
construed as preventing the Council from exercising its full discretionary
authority in granting or denying petitions for annexation as otherwise
permitted by Oregon law.
This policy applies to annexations that are initiated or requested by the
owners of the property to be annexed and that require the consent of owners
or electors under ORS Chapter 222. It does not apply to annexations by
election under ORS Chapters 222 or 195 or to non-consensual "island"
annexations.
Page 7 of 13 -Annexation Policies
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 9 OF 15
Procedure:
RESOLUTION 19-59
EXHIBIT A
This policy applies notwithstanding the election requirements of Section 57 of
the Lake Oswego Charter, which requires a City-wide vote prior to annexation
of parcels within certain portions of the Stafford Area.} If the owners of a
parcel in that area initiate or request annexation contrary to this policy, the
City Council will decline to refer the proposed annexation for a vote under
Section 57.
To identify annexing parcels on which natural resources have been degraded
and for which the City has conducted natural resources inventory and mapping,
the following procedures shall apply:
1.Upon receipt of an annexation petition, City staff will determine
whether the site contains inventoried natural resources or contains
resources designated on the Lake Oswego Natural Resource
Inventory Update (NRIU) Map. If so, staff will visit the parcel(s)
proposed for annexation and compare existing site conditions to the
City's site inventory of natural resources, or to the NRIU Map.
2.If it appears that the functions and values of the natural resources on
the site have been compromised since the parcel was inventoried e-r
designated on the NRIU Map beyond that which would be clearly
permitted under the City's natural resource regulations:
a.For inventoried resources, and for resources designated on the
NRIU Map that have been determined to meet the criteria for
protection under paragraph 2(b), s�taff will instruct the property
owner to develop a mitigation and restoration plan that restores
and protects the functions and values of the resource on-site to
the same degree as if the site had been protected under the
City's natural resource programs from the date of inventory to
the date of annexation. The plan shall be prepared by a certified
professional (restoration ecologist, biologist, ecologist, etc.)
approved by the City Manager. If the property owner or other
applicant for annexation cannot substantiate to the satisfaction
of the City Manager the quality and quantity of natural resources
that were on the site prior the removal or degradation, the
mitigation plan must provide for the establishment or
enhancement of natural resources within the mapped natural
resources area to a minimum quality and quantity determined
by the City Manager, taking into consideration the data and
analysis that resulted in the designation of the mapped natural
resources area on the site. (A property owner who wishes to
establish a natural resource "baseline" following inventory and
prior to any development activities which could degrade the
natural resources is encouraged to contact the City's Natural
Resource Coordinator Planning Department to obtain an
Page 8 of 13 -Annexation Policies
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 10 OF 15
RESOLUTION 19-59
EXHIBIT A
inventory of the quality and quantity of the natural resources
existing on the site.) The mitigation plan shall be reviewed and
either approved by the City Manager or the City Manager shall
make recommendations for improvement to the mitigation plan.
In the case of parcels with natural resources designated on the
NRIU Map, an analysis of the resources under the criteria of LOG
50.15.020 shall be completed by City staff at the app licant's
expense. Follo•1,1ing the analysis, the City Manager shall
determine 1.vhether the resources meet the criteria for
protection. If so, mitigation under paragraph 2(a) shall be
required to the same extent as though the resources had been
in1,1entoried prior to the filing of the annexation petition.
3.If the property owner complies with the mitigation plan as approved by
the City Manager prior to annexation, and maintains the mitigation for
at least three years prior to annexation, the property owner shall be
deemed to have restored the natural resources on the parcel sufficient
to be eligible for annexation under this policy. Annexation of the
property shall be conditioned upon the following:
a.The property owner shall execute an agreement with the City
requiring the property owner to maintain the required
mitigation, at his or her expense, in a manner consistent with
this policy and to the satisfaction of the City Manager for a
period of at least two years following the effective date of the
annexation. The agreement shall also provide that, if the
property owner fails to meet this obligation, the City may enter
the property to restore and maintain the mitigation at the
property owner's expense;
b.The property owner shall record a restrictive covenant against
the property, in a form approved by the City Attorney, requiring
the mitigation to be maintained for at least two years following
the effective date of the annexation in a manner consistent with
this policy and to the satisfaction of the City Manager, granting
the City the right to enforce the restrictive covenant, and
allowing recovery of attorney fees and other enforcement
expense by the City;
c.The property owner shall grant and record an easement, in the
form approved by the City Attorney, allowing the City access to
and use of the property for the purposes of restoring and
maintaining the required mitigation during the two-year period;
and
d.The property owner shall provide the City with a bond, cash
Page 9 of 13 -Annexation Policies
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 11 OF 15
RESOLUTION 19-59
EXHIBIT A
deposit or other security acceptable to the City Manager, in a
sum deemed by the City Manager to be sufficient to cover the
costs of restoration and maintenance of the required mitigation
during the two-year period.
4.The City Council will not approve annexation of property where the
requirements of this policy have not been met, unless the City Council
elects, in its discretion, to exempt the property from this policy.
!!!.:. Policy for parcels where water resources have been degraded in violation of state or
federal law.
The City Council declares that it will decline a petition for annexation of a
parcel pursuant to ORS 222.125 or 222.170 if, following the date of this policy,
a water resource on the parcel has been filled, or has had material removed,
or has otherwise been degraded, in violation of any state or federal law or
regulation, unless the property owner:
•Pays in full all fines, civil penalties and other assessments imposed or
otherwise required by any state or federal agency;
•Pays in full any damages awarded pursuant to the provisions of ORS
Chapter 196 or pursuant to any similar or related statutes or regulations;
•Fully complies with any order of any state or federal agency related to the
degradation of the water resource; and
•Complies with all mitigation or restoration requirements imposed or
ordered by a state or federal agency, and successfully maintains the
mitigation or restoration for at least three years prior to annexation and
commits to maintain the mitigation for at least two years following
annexation.
For the purposes of this policy, "water resource" shall mean any natural
waterway including any bay, stream, lake, wetland or other body of water,
whether navigable or non-navigable.
Compliance with this policy shall not be deemed to assure that the City
Council will approve the annexation petition. This policy shall not be
construed as preventing the Council from exercising its full discretionary
authority in granting or denying petitions for annexation as otherwise
permitted by Oregon law.
This policy applies to annexations that are initiated or requested by the
owners of the property to be annexed and that require the consent of owners
or electors under ORS Chapter 222. It does not apply to annexations by
election under ORS Chapters 222 or 195 or to non-consensual "island"
annexations.
Page 10 of 13 -Annexation Policies
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 12 OF 15
Procedure:
RESOLUTION 19-59
EXHIBIT A
This policy applies notwithstanding the election requirements of Section 57 of
the Lake Oswego Charter, which requires a City-wide vote prior to annexation
of parcels within certain portions of the Stafford Area. If the owners of a
parcel in that area initiate or request annexation contrary to this policy, the
City Council will decline to refer the proposed annexation for a vote under
Section 57.
1.Upon receipt of an annexation petition, City staff will determine
whether the site contained a water resource within 10 years prior to
the date the annexation petition is filed with the City prior to the date
of this policy, and will visit the site to determine the current condition
of the resource.
2.If it appears that, following the date of this policy, within 10 years prior
to the date the annexation petition is filed with the City that removal
or fill has occurred, or that the functions and values of the water
resource have otherwise been compromised, in violation of any state or
federal law or regulation, and if the violation has not previously been
reported to the appropriate state or federal agency, the violation shall
be reported to the appropriate agency by City staff.
Staff Comment: Changes the timeframe for applicability of the policy to 10 years prior to
annexation per Council direction at the October 15, 2019 study session. Keeping the timeframe
for applicability to the date of the adoption of the policy, which was May 18, 2004, creates a
longer and longer timeframe as years pass in which staff must determine whether resources
were altered on the site in violation of this policy. The change to a 10-year timeframe from the
date the annexation petition is filed provides a substantial deterrent to resource alteration prior
to annexation while maintaining a reasonable timeframe in which staff can determine if
resources were altered in violation of this policy.
3.If it appears to staff that no violation has occurred and no report has
been made, or if a report is made but the appropriate state or federal
agency determines that no violation has occurred, the City Manager
shall inform the City Council that the proposed annexation does not
violate this policy.
4.If a report has been made, and the appropriate state or federal agency
determines that a violation has occurred, the annexation petition shall
be denied unless the property owner:
a.Pays in full all fines, civil penalties and other assessments
imposed or otherwise required by any state or federal agency;
b.Pays in full any damages awarded pursuant to the provisions of
ORS Chapter 196, or awarded pursuant to any similar or related
Page 11 of 13 -Annexation Policies
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 13 OF 15
statutes or regulations;
RESOLUTION 19-59
EXHIBIT A
c.Fully complies, in the determination of the City Manager, with
any order of any state or federal agency related to the
degradation of the water resource; and
d.Fully complies, in the determination of the City Manager, with all
mitigation or restoration requirements imposed or ordered by
the state or federal agency, and successfully maintains the
mitigation or restoration for at least five years prior to
annexation.
In addition to the pre-annexation requirements of Sections 4 (a), 4 (b),
4 (c) and 4 (d), above, annexation of the property shall be conditioned
upon the following:
e.The property owner shall execute an agreement with the City
requiring the property owner to maintain the required
mitigation, at his or her expense, in a manner consistent with
this policy and to the satisfaction of the City Manager for a
period of at least two years following the effective date of the
annexation. The agreement shall also provide that, if the
property owner fails to meet this obligation, the City may enter
the property to restore and maintain the mitigation at the
property owner's expense;
f.The property owner shall record a restrictive covenant against
the property, in a form approved by the City Attorney, requiring
the mitigation to be maintained for at least two years following
the effective date of the annexation in a manner consistent with
this policy and to the satisfaction of the City Manager, granting
the City the right to enforce the restrictive covenant, and
allowing recovery of attorney fees and other enforcement
expense by the City;
g.The property owner shall grant and record an easement, in the
form approved by the City Attorney, allowing the City access to
and use of the property for the purposes of restoring and
maintaining the required mitigation during the two-year period;
and
h.The property owner shall provide the City with a bond, cash
deposit or other security acceptable to the City Manager, in a
sum deemed by the City Manager to be sufficient to cover the
costs of restoration and maintenance of the required mitigation
during the two-year period.
Page 12 of 13 -Annexation Policies
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 14 OF 15
RESOLUTION 19-59
EXHIBIT A
5.The City Council will not approve annexation of property that does not
comply with the preceding requirements, unless the Council elects, in its
discretion, to exempt the property from this policy.
IV.Obligations Run with the Land.
Any obligation of the "property owner" under these policies shall "run with the land" and shall be an
obligation of the owner of the property at the time required for performance of the obligation,
regardless of any prior transfers of title.
V.Public Notice.
The City Manager shall publicize the adoption of these policies by providing notice to the news
media, local realtors, local arborists and foresters, the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan
Portland, the Clackamas County Planning Department, and to those Neighborhood Associations and
County Planning Organizations whose boundaries include unincorporated areas within the City's
Urban Services Boundary. The City Manager shall encourage the Neighborhood Associations and
County Planning Organizations to provide notice of these policies to their membership, and to any
realtor that posts signage advertising a property for sale within the unincorporated area. The City
Manager shall also provide written notice of these policies to the owners (as listed in the property
tax assessment roll) of property within the unincorporated area that have inventoried natural
resources, or that have resources designated on the Lake Oswego Natural Resource Inventory
Update Map.
VI, ReelaeeRleRt of ere•tiol:ls aRReMatioR eolie•,,
These policies replace the Interim Policy on Annexation adopted by the City Manager on April S,
�
Staff Comment: Before Resolution 04-38 was adopted, the City Manager had adopted an
Interim Policy on Annexation regarding tree removal and destruction of resources. This section
clarified that the interim policy was replaced by Resolution 04-38. Since Resolution 04-38 has
been in effect for more than 15 years now, this section is no longer needed.
Page 13 of 13 -Annexation Policies
AN 25-0001 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 15 OF 15