HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice of Decision w-Attach Adopted-Signed AN 25-0001
503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
NOTICE OF
FINAL CITY COUNCIL DECISION
ON ANNEXATION
Date Mailed: September 5, 2025
Owners/Applicants: Jesse Davis; Pavilion Construction (A)
Dana Bennett & Darin Rouhier (O/A)
Location of Property: 5450 Kenny St. (21E18DC05400)
File No.: AN 25-0001 (Ordinance 2958)
In accordance with LOC 50.01.004.5, the City zoning designation of R-10 shall be applied to the
subject property on the effective date of annexation. Permitted and conditional uses in this
zone can be found in LOC 50.03.002.
Date of Final City Council Decision:
The City Council moved to approve Ordinance No. 2958, incorporating the following conditions:
1. Reduce the fee of $37,860 by 75 percent; and,
2. Require a mitigation ratio of 1:1 for the trees that were removed.
3. All other conditions under Sections 4a, c, d, e, f, and g of Resolution 19-59 (“Amended
Policies Discouraging Destruction of Natural Resources and Significant Trees Prior to
Annexation”) would apply.
Effective Dates:
1. The effective date of Ordinance 2958 shall be on the 30th day after its enactment, pursuant
to the Lake Oswego City Charter. The ordinance was enacted on September 2, 2025.
2. Effective Date of Annexation.
Following the filing of the annexation with the Secretary of State, the effective date of the
annexation shall be upon the later of either (see note below):
a. The 30th day following the date of adoption of the ordinance, or
b. The date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State.
Note: 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, then the effective date of
the annexation shall be delayed until, and the annexation shall become effective on, the day
after the election.
AN 25-0001/Ord 2958 Page 2 of 2
Right to Appeal: This decision may be appealed, by those who appeared orally or in writing in
these proceedings, by filing a written Notice of Intent to Appeal with the State of Oregon Land
Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) within 21 days of the date of the decision. Date of decision:
September 2, 2025. Twenty-one-day deadline: September 23, 2025. For more information,
contact LUBA at:
Land Use Board of Appeals
550 Capitol St. NE, Suite 235
Salem, OR 97301-2552
(503) 373-1265
How to Obtain More Information: The decision is available for review, and a copy may be
obtained at cost at the following address:
City of Lake Oswego
Planning Department
Lake Oswego City Hall
PO Box 369
380 A Avenue
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone (503) 534-4210
Or call
Paul Espe, Associate Planner
Phone (503) 697-6577
To Learn More About the Effective Date of an Annexation
Once the City of Lake Oswego has been notified that the Secretary of State has filed the
documents (generally 3 to 4 weeks from the City Council’s decision), the effective date of
the annexation will be posted to the City’s website at:
https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/citycouncil/25-0001-5450-kenny-st
For additional information on the effective date, you may also contact:
Cristina Siquina Calderón
City of Lake Oswego – Planning Division
(503) 534-4210 or by email at csiquina@ci.oswego.or.us
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.
EFFECTIVE DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2025
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 conditionally 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. In accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions set forth in Attachments B
and C in support of this annexation ordinance—which the City Council hereby incorporates—
AN 25-0001 is approved with conditions 1-3 listed in Exhibit C.
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.
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 301h 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 2nd day of September, 2025.
AYES: Mayor Buck, Corrigan, Rapf, Afghan, Mboup, Wendland and Verdick
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
oseph M. Buck, Mayor
Dated
4ATTES
Ki. Ono, Interim City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M�' 6
Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney
Ordinance 2958,AN 25-0001
(21E18DC05400) EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 3 OF 3
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.
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 1 OF 3
ATTACHMENT C
Supplemental Findings
Criteria, Findings, Conclusion, and Effective Date
APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
A. Resolution 19-59: Policies Discouraging Destruction of Natural Resources and Significant Trees
Prior to Annexation
Nature of the Proceedings
The original application was submitted on January 7, 2025. 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)
applied to this application.
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 in the Urban Services Boundary (USB) 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 within the city boundary.
Criteria and Standards
The Criteria and Standards are listed in Attachment B to Ordinance 2958 and were submitted and accepted
as part of the record in these proceedings.
Hearings
At its July 1 meeting, the Council held a public hearing and approved AN 25-0001, with conditions based on
Sections 4a, c, d, e, f, and g of Resolution 19-59 (“Amended Policies Discouraging Destruction of Natural
Resources and Significant Trees Prior to Annexation”). The conditions that were the main focus of the
Council discussion included tree mitigation and restoration fee requirements for tree removal on the site
that occurred prior to annexation. This discussion included the planting of mitigation trees at a 3:1 ratio of
the same or similar species that are a minimum of three-inch caliper.
After the hearing, staff identified that one of the adopted conditions would trigger a restoration fee of
$37,860, a consequence that had not been highlighted during the hearing. On July 15, the Council voted to
reconsider the prior approval and directed staff to return on August 5 to consider potential amendments
to the conditions relating to restoration fees and mitigation.
At their meeting on August 5, the Council held a public hearing and received testimony from the property
owner’s representative (referred to herein as the applicant). The Council received testimony that they
intended to develop the property to become their family home. The applicant stated that the tree removal
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 2 OF 3
was not premeditated because they intended to remain and develop the property in unincorporated
Clackamas County. Clackamas County does not have any regulations governing the removal of trees on
properties that do not have a designated resource overlay. The applicant further stated that the trees were
removed before Clackamas County staff determined that their septic system had failed and were required
to connect to the City sanitary line. The applicant further stated that the trees that were removed were
only the ones that were in direct conflict with the future home’s location 1. The applicant had originally
intended to divide the property into two parcels and later discovered the lot was not large enough to yield
two parcels and decided to develop a single-family dwelling and an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The
applicant maintained that the restoration fee of $37,860 was an excessive financial burden for a local
family.
With regard to the requirement to mitigate the trees at a 3:1 ratio as required under Condition 4a of
Resolution 19-59, the applicant stated that the lot of 10,000 square feet could not accommodate 15
additional trees and that it would be more reasonable to plant the five trees at a 1:1 ratio instead.
The applicant also discussed the equity between them and larger scale developers who are presumably
able to remove large numbers of trees without having penalties imposed upon them while the applicant is
burdened with the “full weight of the code” while attempting to preserve as many trees as possible.
Findings and Reasons
The Council finds that a preliminary Tree Removal Application would likely have been approved had the
applicant filed the application for review prior to the removal of the trees.
The Council also finds that the Annexation Policy does not provide for the “intent” a given party had when
they removed the trees and that the policies under Resolution 19-59 should apply regardless of the
applicant’s intent. The Council further finds that these policies were not adopted to deter the development
community, rather it is to preserve the city’s aesthetic value and protected natural resources while co-
existing with development activities. The City intends to welcome properties who wish to annex by
providing a fair and reasonable approach to the review of these applications and it is not the city’s intent to
be overly punitive to small project developers.
Nevertheless, the Council does not wish to send the message that violating the provisions under Resolution
19-59 would somehow be waived if a property owner who has violated this policy simply attends the public
hearing and provides testimony. In this case, the applicant was genuinely not aware of the resource
destruction policies found under Resolution 19-59. Therefore, the Council finds that while the fees should
not be waived entirely, they should be reduced by 75 percent. The Council also concludes that a lot of this
size could not accommodate 15 additional trees if they were to follow the mitigation requirement of 3:1
required by Condition 4a and that it would be more reasonable to require a 1:1 mitigation ratio instead.
After considering the applicant’s testimony at the public hearing on August 5, the Council finds that while it
is important to enforce the Annexation Policies under Resolution 19-59, the Council agreed to the
following conditions:
1. Reduce the restoration fees of $37,860 by 75 percent (= $9465); and,
2. Require a mitigation ratio of 1:1 for the trees that were removed.
1 The applicant had originally proposed to divide the property into two parcels and the trees were removed under this
development assumption. It was later determined that the parcel was not large enough to create two parcels under the future R-
10 zoning. The analysis for the County Type II Tree Removal Certification Review addressed the tree removal under the one lot
scenario, but yielded a similar analysis and conclusion.
Ordinance 2958 (AN 25-0001) ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 3 OF 3
3. All other conditions under Sections 4a, c, d, e, f, and g of Resolution 19-59 (“Amended Policies
Discouraging Destruction of Natural Resources and Significant Trees Prior to Annexation”) would
apply.
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 with conditions 1-3 listed
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;
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.