City Council - 06 Jul 2020 - Agenda - Pdf
City of Sandy
Agenda
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: Monday, July 6, 2020
Meeting Time: 6:00 PM
Page
1. MEETING FORMAT NOTICE
The Council will conduct this meeting electronically using the Zoom video conference
platform. Members of the public may listen, view, and/or participate in this meeting
using Zoom. Using Zoom is free of charge. See the instructions below:
• To login to the electronic meeting online using your computer, click this link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82783612821
• If you would rather access the meeting via telephone, dial (253) 215-8782.
When prompted, enter the following meeting number: 827 8361 2821
• If you do not have access to a computer or telephone and would like to take
part in the meeting, please contact City Hall by Thursday July 3 and
arrangements will be made to facilitate your participation.
2. SANDY URBAN RENEWAL BOARD MEETING - 6:00 PM
2.1. "Growing Together" Mural - Updated SURA Funding Request
"Growing Together" Mural - Updated SURA Funding Request - Pdf
4 - 6
3. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION - 6:30 PM
3.1. Social Services Project and Proposal Presentation
Social Services Project and Proposal - Staff Report
City Council Presentation Slides
Final Report
References and Appendices
Task Force Timeline Example
Project Flyer
7 - 183
3.2. Hoodview Disposal Rate Increase Request
Hoodview Disposal & Recycling Rate Increase Request - Pdf
184 - 194
4. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING - 7:30 PM
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Page 1 of 373
6. ROLL CALL
7. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
8. PUBLIC COMMENT
PLEASE NOTE: There will be a separate opportunity for the public to comment on the
proposed annexation code changes during the public hearing later in the agenda.
The Council welcomes your comments on other topics. Please see the instructions
below:
• If you are participating online, click the "raise hand" button and wait to be
recognized.
• If you are participating via telephone, dial *9 to "raise your hand" and wait to
be recognized.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
9.1. City Council Minutes
City Council - 15 Jun 2020 - Minutes - Pdf
195 - 222
9.2. Sandy Arts Commissioner Appointment
Sandy Arts Commissioner Appointment - Pdf
223
9.3. Oregon Public Works Emergency Response Cooperative Agreement
Renewal of Oregon Public Works Emergency Response Cooperative Agreement - Pdf
224 - 230
10. ORDINANCES
10.1. Ordinance 2020-13
Land Use File 20-010 DCA: Chapter 17.78 Annexation Code Modifications
20-010 DCA Chapter 17.78 Annexation Code Modifications - Pdf
231 - 337
11. RESOLUTIONS
11.1. Resolution 2020-16
Vista Loop - Ten Eyck Pedestrian Project
Resolution 2020-16 Declaring the City's Intent to Acquire Certain Real Property,
Temporary and Permanent Easements - Pdf
338 - 371
12. OLD BUSINESS
12.1. Childcare Incentive Program
Childcare Grant Program - Tenant Improvement - Pdf
372 - 373
Page 2 of 373
13. REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER
14. COMMITTEE /COUNCIL REPORTS
15. STAFF UPDATES
15.1. Monthly Reports
16. ADJOURN
17. CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(i), the Sandy City Council will meet in executive session to
review and evaluate the job performance of a chief executive officer.
Page 3 of 373
Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 6, 2020
From Jeff Aprati, City Recorder
SUBJECT: "Growing Together" Mural - Updated SURA Funding Request
Background:
At its May 4, 2020 work session, the City Council approved the "Growing Together"
mural concept. At the June 1, 2020 SURA Board meeting, the Arts Commission asked
the Board for authorization of funding to underwrite the project in an amount not to
exceed $20,000, adding that project costs are anticipated to be offset by a community
fundraising campaign.
At the June 1 meeting, the Board chose to defer a funding decision until July 6 to allow
time to gauge the success of the fundraising campaign.
Since June 1, $6,700 in cash donations and pledges has been raised in support of the
mural, as well as a commitment for $3,000 worth of installation labor. Thus, the Arts
Commission is now lowering the requested funding amount from $20,000 to $11,000. If
the Board grants the funding request, any additional donations received would be
allocated to the Art Fund to support future maintenance.
Pamela Smithsted is representing the Arts Commission at this meeting, and Becky
Hawley, the mural artist, is available to answer design and implementation questions.
An updated budget is attached to this staff report. A rendering of the mural is available
at this link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b_VJvZoIPtYo4QJCFab9CVdgyFuaOPvU/view?usp=sh
aring
Recommendation:
Consider granting the Arts Commission's request for urban renewal funding for the
Growing Together mural in the amount of $11,000.
Page 4 of 373
GROWING TOGETHER ~ SILHOUETTE MURAL
July 6, 6PM Urban Renewal Board Meeting
Murals are an approved usage of Urban Renewal funds; art improves the aesthetics of the
downtown, is a tool for economic development and improves the quality of life of residents.
We are seeking a grant of $11,000. Donations will fund the remainder.
Project Cost Projection - To Date
1/8” steel- powder coated $9,800 (Bid)
Artist’s design & project oversight $6,000 (Donated)
GROW TOGETHER sign $1,500-3,000 estimated- TBD
Wall plaque(s) $1,200 estimated- TBD
Other paint and supplies $300
Contractor Installation $4,500-5,500
Light Fixtures X 3 $1,300 (Referenced, but not included
in the original estimate.)
Building permit required $500
Approximate Projected Project Cost $25,100-$27,600
AVERAGE PROJECTED COST $26,350
Page 5 of 373
CURRENT LEVEL OF SUPPORT
IN-KIND DONATIONS:
Wall space donated by the building owner.
$6,000 Donated by Becky Hawley, Artist & Project Planner
$3,000 Donated installation labor
$9,000 Total in-kind donations
MONETARY PLEDGES & DONATIONS: To June 26, 2020
$6,700 Total: Individuals, Businesses and Sandy Arts Commission
$15,700 TOTAL RAISED—
Donations are currently 60% of the Average Projected Project Cost
Page 6 of 373
Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 6, 2020
From Jordan Wheeler, City Manager
SUBJECT: Social Services Project and Proposal Presentation
Background:
The City Council will be receiving an excellent report and presentation from a team of
graduate students that recently completed their project as part of their work in a Public
Projects Management course at Portland State University. The focus of their project is a
proposal to establish a social services task force and develop a social services strategic
plan for the Sandy community. The project idea emerged following several
conversations between the team lead, Maggie Holm, who is a Sandy resident, and
community leaders including Mayor Pulliam and Councilor Lee. Councilor Lee and I
served as the project sponsor and had the pleasure of seeing their presentation to their
class last month. Ms. Holm will be presenting along with another member of the team,
Kali Levy.
Page 7 of 373
Page 8 of 373
Page 9 of 373
Page 10 of 373
What is Trauma?Page 11 of 373
ADverse Childhood experiences
Page 12 of 373
Page 13 of 373
Page 14 of 373
Page 15 of 373
LIFETIME COSTS OF 2019 CONFIRMED CHILD ABUSE IN CLACKAMAS COUNTY:
$166,119,492
The COST OF ACES
Page 16 of 373
Cost effectiveness of Prevention
Page 17 of 373
INTEGRATED SOCIAL SERVICES
How Do we tackle these issues?
STRATEGIC PLAN
Page 18 of 373
Super
Strategic Social Services:
Planning for a Resilient Community
Goals Program
Level
Project
Level
Purpose
Page 19 of 373
Task Force Structure
Page 20 of 373
Stakeholder AnalysisPage 21 of 373
Page 22 of 373
example: City of Independence action plan
Create/promote a “one-stop” resource with all aspects of social service information
Education and prevention programs focused on: Abuse (sexual, physical, neglect,
bullying, etc.)
Strategy: Provide better access to social services in support of families
Actions:Page 23 of 373
Another example: our Issaquah strategic plan
“Implement and enhance the Housing Strategy Work Plan.
Work with faith-based and other organizations to evaluate partnerships for
affordable housing development.
Determine if City property assets should be used for affordable housing needs.”
Objective:
“Housing affordability better meets the needs of individuals and families
across the income spectrum to live and work in the community."
Potential actions:
Success Measure:
"Percentage of households paying >30% of household income on housing.”Page 24 of 373
Survey Results
Page 25 of 373
BENEFITS TO COMMUNITIES
Page 26 of 373
2019 2021 CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Page 27 of 373
Page 28 of 373
Page 29 of 373
REFERENCES
Page 30 of 373
APPRECIATIONS
We thank our project team members Parker Mullins and Hunter Ruud for their incredible
contributions to the development of this project.
We also deeply appreciate the assistance we received from Dr. Marcus Ingle, Ph.D.
Candidate Ana Sofía Castellanos, and Dr. Scott Lazenby during Spring Term 2020.
For the wonderful support we've received from our project Sponsors City Manager
Jordan Wheeler and City Councilor Jan Lee, we are so grateful.
Thank you also to the Sandy Connect members and City Councilors who responded to
our surveys, providing essential information and a great foundation for the work ahead.
And finally, we express our utmost respect for the ongoing, creative work of so many
communities around the region to respond to their residents’ needs in ways that are
community led, data driven, participant focused, and sustainable.Page 31 of 373
Page 32 of 373
Purpose
Terminology
Sandy Community Profile
Social Determinants of Health
Trauma & Resilience
Overview
ACEs
Public Cost
Trauma Informed Approaches & Resilience
Benefits of Social Service Integration
Questionnaire Report
Best Practices
Recommendations
Best Practices
Trauma Informed Communities
Social Service Integration
Developing a Strategic Plan
Recommendations
Strategic Plan High Level Outline
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
2
3
5
7
8
12
14
16
22
23
28
31
35
40
47
48
49
53
59
64
70
73
74
89
123
130
Page 33 of 373
This process was made possible through the support and hard work of many
wonderful people. We are enormously grateful to all who assisted our team in the
development of this project and the report following hereafter.
We are extremely appreciative for the willingness of Sandy Mayor Stan Pulliam for
believing in this project from the beginning and advocating for its vision and
process. Mayor Pulliam, your readiness to see the needs of the community and to
strive to find innovative solutions has been a catalyst for positive change in Sandy.
We thank Portland State University (PSU) and the Hatfield School of Government for
the resources, academic opportunities, and support it provides for all of its
students. And a very special thanks to PSU Professor Dr. Marcus Ingle and Ph.D
Candidate Ana Sofía Castellanos who made this team project possible as a live case
study in the Spring 2020 term. You both, and Dr. Scott Lazenby, provided critical
guidance, advice, and motivation that improved our project markedly.
To Sandy City Manager Jordan Wheeler and Sandy City Councilor Jan Lee we extend
our deepest gratitude for walking alongside us in this process, lending your time and
attention amongst all the vital work you do every day in the Sandy community. We
could not have completed this project without you.
For the thoughtful participation of all our questionnaire respondents we are
immensely grateful. We know that all of the Sandy City Council members and Sandy
Connect participants are constantly working to improve the lives of people in Sandy
and beyond. Your insights and experience helped to shape this report and our teams
recommendations. Thank you specifically to Lynne Deshler, Brian McCrady, and
Patricia Kendrick who assisted our team in promoting the questionnaire and
encouraging stakeholders to participate.
And finally, we express our utmost respect for the ongoing, creative work of so many
communities around the region to respond to their residents’ needs in ways that are
community led, data driven, participant focused, and sustainable.
Maggie Gilm an Holm, K ali Le vy,
Park er Mul lins, & Hu nt er Ru ud
Page 34 of 373
Like many rural communities around the state, Sandy is
struggling with how to address complex community
issues including homelessness, affordable housing,
domestic violence, and mental health access, among
others. As the City of Sandy has been actively engaged
in updating strategic plans for other policy areas, we
believe that now is the time for Sandy to develop a
social services strategic plan.
This report is intended as a proposal and guide to
developing a social services task force and strategic
plan for the Sandy community. The work for this project
was completed by our team of four Portland State
University graduate students as part of a Public
Projects Management course. The project was
developed from several conversations throughout the
past year between our team lead, who is a Sandy
resident, Mayor Stan Pulliam, Councilor Jan Lee, and
City Manager Jordan Wheeler. Additionally, Councilor
Jan Lee and City Manager Jordan Wheeler served as
sponsors for this project.
To provide background and context for the
recommendations of this report, the first sections give
an overview of Sandy, discuss the purpose for
developing a strategic plan, and explain social factors
that have significant impacts on social service needs.
The context section includes discussion of the
significant research of trauma and adverse childhood
experiences (ACEs) and their demonstrated negative
impacts on the long-term health and wellbeing of both
individuals and the community as a whole. Research has
also demonstrated that addressing these issues at a
societal level positively impacts public health. These
.
Page 35 of 373
examinations of public health issues are addressed in
greater detail to assist readers in their understanding
of the team’s recommendations for developing a
strategic social services plan through the lens of a
trauma informed approach.
A task force is our proposed method for developing a
social service’s strategic plan. The task force section of
the report reviews best practices and gives
recommendations for building and implementing a task
force to complete the strategic plan. We advocate for a
task force that is multi-sector, demographically
diverse, and includes input from residents who are
recipients of the services the strategic plan will aim to
improve.
The final substantive section discusses the strategic
plan itself. This section features best practices for
developing a strategic plan, an analysis of other plans,
specific recommendations for the Sandy context, and a
proposed outline to be used in developing the strategic
plan. To fully address community concerns in the
strategic plan, inviting community participation and
feedback is vital. This can come in the form of surveys
or, for even greater benefits, a community health
assessment. Within the plan itself, goals should have
clear steps towards achievement that incorporate
measures of success. To be successful long-term, our
team recommends that a social services advisory board
be developed to implement, evaluate, monitor, and
periodically update the social services strategic plan.
Lastly, appendices are attached to provide references
and supplemental information.
Page 36 of 373
What if we truly understood the
underlying causes to some of our most
complex community issues like
homelessness, drug and alcohol
addiction, domestic violence, and
mental health challenges?
What if we could work in innovative
and constructive ways to reduce their
negative effects on individuals and
families?
What would the impact of another
public health crisis be like if robust,
collaborative, and locally provided
services were already in place?
WH Y CREAT E A S OCI AL
SE RVICES ST RA TEG IC P LA N?
Cities all over the nation are working
to find effective ways to build
supportive, resilient communities
where residents can truly thrive.
As Sandy continues to invest in
strategic planning for infrastructure
and basic services for its growing
community, it is imperative we
likewise focus attention on social
services needs.
Through purposeful, strategic social
service planning our community can
genuinely be one of the best places to
raise a family, find meaningful
employment, and retire.
With the city's leadership, it is
possible to improve the coordination
of preventative services and enhance
"down-stream" approaches to help
mitigate future costs to the
community.
Page 37 of 373
Beyond better utilization of the public
dollar, implementing a social services
strategic plan also brings greater local
economic vitality.
With increased services provided
locally comes additional local higher
wage jobs, workforce development
opportunities, and sustainable
community development.
With higher wage jobs comes potential
tax revenue, small business support,
hands on educational opportunities
for youth, and more.
This comprehensive report is meant to
provide the Sandy City Council with
compiled research, best practices and
recommendations for social services
strategic planning as well as providing
assistance for the task force itself in
developing a strategic plan.
With improved coordination and
collaboration of services, the Sandy
locality will more successfully attend
to the needs of its residents, increase
the quality of life for individuals and
families in the area, and build a safer,
more prosperous community for all.
https://www.mthoodterritory.com/articles/stay-a-while-in-sandy
Page 38 of 373
To facilitate mutual understanding of
the materials contained in this report,
we are clarifying a few terms that may
have multiple uses in general
vernacular. There are also terms used
in others areas of this report that are
defined within their sections, as they
require more detailed definitions.
Strategic Plan:
Throughout our research, cities and
counties use various terms to define
their own strategic plans. In our
research we found plans titled
“Strategic,” “Comprehensive,” “Master
Plan,” “Vision 2040” and “Community
Action Plan”. For the purposes of this
report, we have utilized the term
strategic plan as an all inclusive term
when referencing plans.
Social Services:
Due to the equivalent nature of their
work, the terms “social services” and
“human services” were observed being
used interchangeably within the
strategic plans analysis and general
research performed during this
project.
The terms refer to the kinds of
services that address different social
and human needs such as food
insecurity, domestic and sexual
violence, workforce development,
child services, affordable housing,
mental health services, and beyond.
Throughout this report we have
decided on the use of the term social
services.
Page 39 of 373
The City of Sandy is a small town
located in Clackamas County at the
foothills of Mt Hood featuring a
population of around 11,000 people.
The city has undergone rapid
expansion, as the population has
doubled in the past two decades.
Through this, Sandy has continued
to strive to provide exceptional
services and community building
opportunities for its residents.
In light of a diversifying population
and growing understanding of the
complex issues residents are facing
today, there are new concerns and
dilemmas that the city must address
in order to adequately meet the
needs of its residents. Examining
the specific, local factors of the
community allows for better
comprehension of the current
obstacles impeding the successful
provision of social services within
Sandy.
As is common in many rural areas, a
significant challenge to accessing
social services is location and
transportation.
This barrier has become even more
prominent during the COVID-19
crisis as it may be unsafe for many
vulnerable populations to utilize
public transportation or ride shares.
1
Page 40 of 373
Even without the complicating
factors of a public health crisis,
there are many hurdles for Sandy
residents to overcome in order to
access essential services.
If we look at situations of child
abuse and domestic violence, the
Children’s Center, Clackamas
Women’s Services, and many other
community service providers are
located in Oregon City.
While there is some availability for
in town appointments, many Sandy
residents can only access domestic
and sexual violence support more
than 20 miles away. While 20 is not a
monumental number of miles,
depending on the barriers an
individual may be facing, the
distance may well feel like 200.
For a resident without access to a
car, the trip to Oregon City would
take more than 2 hours and 20
minutes on public transportation
(assuming that person is starting
their trip in the downtown area of
Sandy). If a resident is struggling
with a mental health crisis, poverty,
a physical disability, or a lack of
childcare, how truly accessible are
those services?
The strong leadership of City
Council and the City of Sandy staff
over the years has, and continues to,
achieve incredible feats. Innovative
projects built from the ground up
are commonplace in Sandy, and
represent the grit, resourcefulness,
and extraordinary potential of this
community.
With the number of governments
and agencies around the area, there
are a multitude of opportunities to
build valuable partnerships and find
collaborating entities to help
facilitate the planning and
implementation of a social service
strategic planning project. One such
entity is the Oregon Trail School
District, which is geographically the
largest school district in Clackamas
County.
There are also a number of nearby
unincorporated communities, such
as Welches and Boring, that should
be considered when attempting to
formulate strategies for the
provision of social services. Finally,
as the area falls within the
territories of the regional governing
bodies of Clackamas County and
Metro, the larger resource pools
and capacities available could
ultimately aid in the supply,
provision, and improvement of
social services within Sandy.
2
3
4
Page 41 of 373
2025: 12,738
2030: 14,167
2035: 15,757
2040: 19,416
7
White: 84.9%
Black: 0.6%
Indigenous Nations: 0.7%
Asian: 0.6%
Two or More Races: 3.8%
Hispanic or Latinx: 9.7%
9
8
6
5
Page 42 of 373
10
11
12
Page 43 of 373
It is possible to foster healthier individuals,
families, and societies through purposeful
strategic planning in our communities.
Understanding the dynamic nature of
health and wellbeing is an important first
step in tackling the complex issues facing
our communities today.
The social determinants of health approach
looks at the: "conditions in the
environments in which people are born, live,
learn, work, play, worship, and age that
affect a wide range of health, functioning,
and quality-of-life outcomes and risks." 1
Page 44 of 373
As part of its mission, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is
working to help practitioners and communities to:
Availability of resources to
meet daily needs (e.g., safe
housing and local food
markets)
Access to educational,
economic, and job
opportunities
Access to health care
services
Quality of education and
job training
Availability of community-
based resources in support
of community living and
opportunities for
recreational and leisure-
time activities
Transportation options
Public safety
Social support
Social norms and attitudes
(e.g., discrimination,
racism, and distrust of
government)
Exposure to crime,
violence, and social
disorder (e.g., presence of
trash and lack of
cooperation in a
community)
Socioeconomic conditions
(e.g., concentrated poverty
and the stressful
conditions that accompany
it)
Language/Literacy
Access to mass media and
emerging technologies
(e.g., cell phones, the
Internet, and social media)
3
2
Quoted from Healthy People 2020
Page 45 of 373
Research over the past 30 years has
conclusively found that experiences
of trauma, especially those in
childhood, drastically impact the
academic, economic, social, and
physical and mental health outcomes
of people’s lives.
Whether talking about war veterans,
sexual assault survivors, or children
experiencing emotional and physical
abuse, we see common threads of
behavioral issues, mental health
challenges, drug and alcohol
addiction, and homelessness.
The term “trauma” is commonly used
across many disciplines. In this
report, trauma is used with The
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA)
definition in mind:
1
4
2
3
5
Page 46 of 373
Trauma is not a fleeting moment or
experience, it writes itself into the
very fabric of our being - our brains
physically change, and as a result it
affects memory, behavior, physical
and mental health, our ability to
focus, or to hold down a job.
Thankfully, the brain is an incredible
and malleable organ. Experiences of
trauma do not have to dictate the
future of those who experience it.
To combat the negative effects of
trauma, especially for children and
youth, action must be taken.6
https://impactnw.org/news/how-trauma-clouds-brain-infographic/trauma-infographic-header/
7
Page 47 of 373
1
During the late 1990s, a
revolutionary study stunned
practitioners by uncovering a clear
relationship between adverse
childhood experiences (ACEs) and
poor health and behavioral
outcomes.
The study involved more than 17,000
people, all of whom were employed,
had healthcare, mostly upper-middle
class, college educated, and white.
Participants completed .
confidential surveys that disclosed
how many of ten different traumatic
experiences a participant had
experienced. The number of
experiences they had were used as
their “ACE Score”.
The results were staggering - it
became clear that adverse
experiences were common within
the American population; two thirds
of the 17,000 participants had an
ACE score of at least one.2
3
1
Page 48 of 373
Jul y 2020
Pa g e 17 o f 147
5
4
Page 49 of 373
L I F E L O N G
I M P A C T S
Jul y 2020
Page 18 of 1 4 7
*Infographic by the CDC
7
6
Page 50 of 373
Jul y 2020
Page 19 of 1 4 7
9
8
Page 51 of 373
11
10
Jul y 2020
Page 2 0 of 1 4 7
9
Page 52 of 373
Jul y 2020
Pa g e 21 o f 147
9
12
13
Page 53 of 373
Jul y 2020
Pag e 22 of 147
16
According to the CDC, "ACEs are costly. The economic and social
costs to families, communities, and society totals hundreds of
billions of dollars each year." In the U.S., it is estimated that the
lifetime costs associated with just a single year's child
maltreatment cases totals $124 Billion.
14
15
17
Page 54 of 373
While the outcomes of trauma can be devastating, and even deadly,
communities need not despair. There are evidence-based and innovative
ways to combat ACEs and provide protective measures against the harmful
effects of trauma. Protective factors help build resilience for individuals,
families, and communities as a whole.
RESILIENCE IS:
A PA THWA Y TOWAR D RESILIENC Y
City of Sandy Facebook Page
1
Pa g e 23 o f 147
City of Sandy Facebook Page
Page 55 of 373
Trauma informed approaches can be
utilized in diverse settings, and can
be defined as:
“service delivery that is
grounded in and directed by a
thorough understanding
of the neurological, biological,
psychological and social effects
of trauma and violence on
humans and human groups"
Communities all over the nation
have worked to incorporate ACEs
and Trauma Informed approaches
into their policies, strategic plans,
and visions.
These initiatives have resulted in
wide-spread positive change
throughout local government, police
departments, school districts, social
service organizations, and
communities at large.
A few examples of such work are:
The State of Wisconsin
Washington County ACEs
Initiative, OR
The Dalles, OR
Walla Walla, WA
and 19 different communities
within Virginia
2
3
Page 56 of 373
a 13.2% decrease in student use
of alcohol
2.5% decrease in marijuana use
14% reduction in office
referrals
a decrease in physical fights
and students also report[ing]
feeling safer in school
The Dalles, with a population of
13,000, has been working to create a
trauma informed community for
little over a decade now. In 2008 the
chief of police, the school district
superintendent, the regional
manager of DHS, and the director of
Juvenile Justice began exploring
ways to implement the trauma
informed Sanctuary Model, "non-
hierarchical, highly participatory,
“trauma-informed and evidence-
supported” operating system for
human services organizations"..
Starting with a Safe Schools/Healthy
Students grant from the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration.
The process began in the North
Wasco County School district with:
Demonstrated results over the five
years of the Safe Schools/Healthy
Students grant included:
36% decrease in the number of
calls for police response at
school campuses, and
75% decrease in the number of
police calls at the Dalles
Middle School.
referrals decreased 21 percent
at the Chenowith Elementary
School between 2012 and 2013
Additionally, from 2008 to 2013,
there was a:
By 2013, even though the grant had
ended, there was broad support and
dedication from all the major
service providers in the area to
implement the Sanctuary Model and
provide trauma informed services.
The local government has been
involved as well, learning more from
presentations on the model and how
trauma affects the community.
The Dalles area is also a member of
the Mobilizing Action for Resilient
Communities which consists of 14
different
With the successes of The Dalles,
and its best practice, evidence-
based nature, the Oregon
Department of Health Services,
continues to recommend the
resource and fund programs that
implement the Sanctuary Model.
5
4
6
7
8
9
Page 57 of 373
When looking at the outcomes from the trauma informed program at one local
high school in Walla Walla, WA the positive impacts of combating ACEs are
evident:
Tickle Creek Trail in Sandy, Oregon
10
11
Page 58 of 373
House Bill 2026 - “decrease
rates of school absenteeism
by using trauma informed
approaches to education,
health services and
intervention strategies.”
House Concurrent Resolution
33 – “Encourages state
officers, agencies and
employees to become
informed about impacts of
trauma and to implement
evidence-based trauma
informed care practices and
interventions."
House Bill 2401 – requiring the
Department of Human
Services to implement trauma
informed training for
employees, and having trauma
informed policies,
assessments, and processes.
Oregon has begun to seriously
consider the impacts of trauma and
has implemented numerous local
and statewide legislation relating to
trauma informed practices and
addressing the impacts of trauma:
Oregon continues to incorporate
questions about ACEs and trauma
within their health studies and data
collection. Similarly, counties
around the state, including
Clackamas County, are examining
these issues and putting trauma
informed approaches into their
policies and resources. This shows
that there is broad support for
trauma informed policies and
.
practices, and that are resources
around the region available to
utilize for strategic planning
purposes.
Sandy has an opportunity to follow
the successes of cities such as The
Dalles, OR and Walla Walla, WA by
incorporating a trauma informed
response to enhance its values of
being a vibrant, welcoming
community for its residents.
One particular local resource that
can provide additional information
and training is Trauma Informed
Oregon, a collaboration supported
by the Oregon Health Authority,
Doernbecher Children's Hospital,
and Portland State University.
City of Sandy Facebook Page
12
13
14
Page 59 of 373
Social service integration can mean different things to different
communities – for some, it may mean a brick and mortar building that is a
“one stop shop” for services. For others, it may mean more centralized
coordination of services in a given area. Overall:
1
Page 60 of 373
In general, social service integration
seeks to:
Any form of integration is likely to
have beneficial impacts to service
provision.
In their Building Better Human
Service Systems report for the
Annie. E. Casey Foundation, the
Rockefeller Institute of Government
posits that integrating services
allows communities
*Adapted from the Rural Health Information Hub
Be client-centered focus
Eliminate fragmentation,
complexity,
Public, private, nonprofit,
and faith-based
Promote efficiency, as
measured through
improved outcomes, and
efficiency, as measured
through reduced costs
and redundancy in
systems
organizations providing
services for the
community
City of Sandy Facebook Page
2 3
Page 61 of 373
Polk County, OR has successfully utilized service integration in their region,
including broad based
In their 2018-19 report, the Polk County Service Integration Program Team
highlighted the process service integration facilitates:
Served over 1,080 families
Provided $258,412 worth of services
During 2018, The Polk County Service Integration Team (SI) noted that the
program:
and needs met by the SI team
Creating a strategic plan for social services in the area facilitates higher
levels of collaboration and coordination. This service integration increases
the accessibility of services for residents as well as bolsters local
organizations’ ability to stabilize their operations for long term community
benefits.
Leveraging the collective power of the incredible expertise, knowledge, and
experience of social service providers in the community and the larger
region can assist Sandy in providing the holistic, sustainable services the
community deserves.
4
5
6
*Adapted from the Polk County Service Integration Teams 2018-2019 Report
Page 62 of 373
In order to gain preliminarily insight
to the social service issues facing
the community of Sandy, our team
sent informal questionnaires to the
City Council and the listserve for
Sandy Connect, a group for social
service providers.
There were two versions of the
questionnaire, one tailored for City
Council and one for Sandy Connect.
Each included questions inquiring
about the type of feedback the
respondent heard from the
community about social services in
Sandy, what they perceived social
service needs to be, and how COVID-
19 may impact social services.
Further questions included asking
Council what barriers to
.
implementation a strategic plan may
face and asking Sandy Connect what
community members should be
included in the development of a
plan. For a full list of questions and
responses, see Appendix A.
We received five completed
questionnaires from Council
members and 11 from Sandy
Connect. Social service issues
highlighted in the responses
included lack of affordable and
adequate transportation, desire for
more homelessness services such as
shelters and hygiene services, a
need to increase activities for
youth, especially teens, and mental
health access.
City of Sandy Facebook Page
Page 63 of 373
Page 64 of 373
Respondents also raised specific
concerns such as the community not
being aware of or able to navigate
the services available within Sandy,
limited hours being a barrier to
services offered, and the location
for some services being too far. One
respondent pointed out the need to
consider not only if services are
provided, but if they are accessible
to all. The example was that while
food is available, there is a need to
consider if those with a disability
may be able to pick up the food, or if
those without cell phones would be
able to coordinate food delivery.
Ideas for improvement were also
discussed. A few respondents
mentioned the idea for a “service
mall” where a client could access the
services they need at one location.
Another respondent proposed an
idea for a program that would allow
individuals to complete tasks that
benefited seniors for a stipend.
Within the Council questionnaire,
four out of five respondents
supported the idea of creating a
task force to guide the creation of a
social services strategic plan. When
asked about the role city
government should play, answers
included the city as a leader and a
coordinator of social services.
A question to Council was asked
about the comparative benefits of
an official versus unofficial task
force and responses ranged from
budget concerns with an official
task force to an unofficial task force
lacking the oversight and stability of
an official task force.
A few of the identified potential
barriers to adopting a social
services strategic plan were budget
constraints and a lack of city staff
to provide support. Advice was given
that any task force would need to be
nimble and adaptable.
City of Sandy Facebook Page
Page 65 of 373
Both the Council and Sandy Connect
were asked a question relating to
COVID-19 and how it may impact
social services. Issues and concerns
brought up were that COVID-19 is
likely to create an increase in
service demand, increase
dependence on technology which
not everyone has access to, and
increased child abuse and domestic
violence. With schools closed
because of COVID-19, there may
also be a decrease in the ability to
identify and report child abuse.
The economic impacts of COVID-19
were brought up by three
respondents. One respondent said
COVID has the “potential to
devastate some of our most
.
vulnerable populations.” It was
mentioned that children who have
parental support at home will likely
do better in the online format of
school than those who do not.
Sandy Connect respondents were
asked which groups they believed
were important to include in the
development of a task force and
strategic plan. Groups mentioned
were churches and faith
communities, schools, and the
Hispanic/Latinx community. For a
full list of potential stakeholders,
please see Appendix C.
For a complete view of the
questionnaires and the answers
received, please see Appendix A.
City of Sandy Facebook Page
Page 66 of 373
INTRO D UCTION & BEST PRACTICES
Setting out to initiate the
development of a thoughtful
social services strategic plan
requires place-based insight
from local partners that engage
with these services at different
levels. Without stakeholder
involvement, it is incredibly
difficult to plan for
implementation of services that
effectively reach the most
vulnerable members of a
population, especially when
these individuals are not the
most visible members of a
community. In Sandy, as with
many other communities, the
best way to accomplish this type
of endeavor is through the
assembly of a task force of
experts to collaborate and
propose best practices and
solutions for the creation of a
robust strategic plan.
Task forces, sometimes referred
to as “ad hoc” committees, are
groups of experts on a particular
topic that are built to address an
issue for local governments. City
officials are often tasked with
addressing challenges that they
.
are not experts in and require
input from these groups.
As opposed to committees, task
forces are not actually a part of
the city’s official programming,
and often operate on a volunteer
basis. While they report to the
central group they are compiling
information for, they are not
beholden specifically to them in
an official way and can thus
integrate unbiased, objective
input into their work. COVID-19
will undoubtedly amplify the
challenges faced by citizens
throughout the region, and in
order to plan for the continued
impacts this pandemic will have,
community experts who already
work to provide these services
will be critical to learn from.
Our team believes that the
development of a task force is
critical for the City of Sandy to
equitably develop a strategic
plan for social services that is
trauma-informed, culturally
relevant, and agile enough to
address the realities of a post-
COVID-19 world.
Page 67 of 373
Our team has examined a number of
pre-existing task forces built to
implement social services and
compiled a number of critical
factors leading to success for these
groups. In the formation of its own
task force to develop a social
services strategic plan, we have
several recommendations for the
City of Sandy to ensure that the
team has a unique perspective to
provide their expertise.
We strongly advocate for a task
force that is multi-sector,
demographically diverse, and
includes input from citizens that are
recipients of the services being
planned by this team. Developing a
multi-sector task force is frequently
listed as one of the most important
aspects of the planning process. The
Center for Community Health and
Development at the University of
Kansas deems this as perhaps the
only effective way to implement a
community-oriented task force from
a standpoint of equitably reaching
the broader population as well as
including realistic expertise. They
note:
Having groups that may not often
work together join in collaboration
on development of a strategic plan
develops a sense of ownership by
the community and those
integrating the plan into their work.
In the case of Sandy, our team has
had the opportunity to receive
feedback from a questionnaire
provided to Sandy Connect to solicit
information about the sectors that
the task force could potentially
represent.
Sandy Connect is a network of
individuals in the city that work in
direct service roles for a variety of
social service programs, from food
security to elder care. The insight
provided by this outreach, as noted
elsewhere in this report, has been
absolutely essential in informing our
team about the makeup and need
for this task force.
Sandy faces unique challenges in its
geographic reality as a rural city and
additionally as a town that has seen
consistent growth and
diversification over the past two
decades.
Sandy Connect stakeholders
consistently identified the difficulty
many folks face as a result of
isolation and particularly in regards
to childcare and family services. As
with any city experiencing rapid
growth, unhoused and groups that
are at-risk of being unhoused are
especially vulnerable.
For this reason, we find it
imperative that the task force has
representation from DHS, housing
advocates (such as those working in
transitional housing programs), and
food security have representation
on the team and add this multi-
sector element to the group.
1
Page 68 of 373
In the case that issue groups are
identified as high-priority within a
strategic plan, extra efforts can be
made to set aside time for these
individuals to discuss and formulate
possible solutions for topic-specific
issues.
The Ventura Social Services Task
Force (VSSF) located in southern
California utilized an internal
committee system with its task
forces. These committees meet
separately from the larger group,
oftentimes working directly with
community members and broadly
promoting their meetings to solicit
outside feedback. While Sandy is
not as large as Ventura, there are
opportunities for members to go
above and beyond in addressing
high-need areas of concern.
The Center for Community Health
and Development also recommends
including individuals who are
“secondarily affected” by the issues
being addressed by a community
task force. These are stakeholders
that are not working directly in
.
social services perhaps, but their
livelihood is impacted by the
implementation of social services
and the role that they play in a
community.
For example, these could be public
transit employees that frequently
come into contact with members of
the community as they travel to and
from locations where they receive
assistance from service programs.
They could also be people who work
in natural spaces such as public
parks, as these workers are
becoming more and more
intertwined with the results of the
region’s housing crisis as they
encounter individuals living outside.
We advocate that the city or task
force members identify these
groups amongst themselves and
recruit one of these secondarily
affected community members that
is interested in thoughtfully
participating in this process of
building policy around social
services that sometimes invisibly
have an impact on their lives.
City of Sandy Facebook Page
2
Page 69 of 373
In addition to community members
that experience the effects of these
services indirectly, it is also vital
that the team includes the insights
from individuals who are actually
receiving the services being
discussed.
Social service projects, as with any
public infrastructure project, should
always include consistent feedback
from clients throughout the
process. At the very least, a task
force developing this strategic plan
should have specific, thoughtful
points in their drafting process that
allow for insights from community
members.
Due to legal concerns, such as
HIPAA compliance, there may be
.
.
cases where this has to be done
privately from task force members
that work directly in environments
where the feedback is being
solicited from. In other cases,
however, there are also
opportunities for an official position
on the task force for such a
community member. Examples could
be affordable housing residents,
veterans, and youth advocates.
If possible, our team also
recommends that some form of
compensation be considered for
involvement of these groups, which
could make participation more
accessible. This could be mileage
reimbursement for travel or other
expenses incurred in their
involvement with the task force.
Page 70 of 373
A final, considerably important
factor that increases the
effectiveness of task forces is
ensuring that demographic diversity
exists on the team. Just as with
including service recipients or
clients on the task force, this factor
is vital for increasing the lived
experiences that the team brings to
the table in their discussions of
policy design.
One factor that has been noted to
our team from various sources, such
as our initial conversations with
some service providers and city
officials, is the growing population
of migrant agricultural workers
living in the city. It should be a
priority for the task force to have
representation from this
community, whether they be an
agricultural worker themselves or an
.
organization who works directly with
them providing services or other
relevant programs.
Demographic diversity for the team
should also include socioeconomic
diversity, requiring the task force to
be consistently thoughtful and self-
reflective in how they approach the
initial formation of the group.
One of the biggest pitfalls for city
programs is the development of
policy by those who are only familiar
with one subset of lived experiences
in a community, and in Oregon these
are often white and upper-middle
class individuals. Approaching this
process using an equity lens can
have a tremendous impact on the
quality of the strategic plan being
developed.
City of Sandy Facebook Page
Page 71 of 373
SPE CIF IC REC OMME NDATIONS
The following recommendations
pertain to the structure of the
task force for developing a social
services strategic plan, and can
be viewed taken as informative
insights rather than precise
direction.
Task Force Structure:
The first recommendation is that
the city form a multi-sector task
force consisting of 10-15
members. This will greatly
benefit the city’s attempt to
arrive at equitable and inclusive
outcomes, as “a multi-sector
task force or action committee is
drawn from all sectors of the
community affected by or
involved in the problem or goal
that is the group's focus.”
By incorporating members from
various positions and industries,
the city can best ensure that the
task force is constructed in a way
that equitably represents the
various demographics that
utilize the city’s social services.
The city should consider the
multitude of stakeholders
involved in creating and
.
implementing a strategic plan
for social services, as this
provides the task force with
contextual experiences and
insights. The following areas,
amongst others, should be
represented in the task force:
housing, food security, mental
health, domestic violence,
education, and senior services.
These areas all entail important
issues that need to be
recognized in order to produce a
thorough and effective strategic
plan, and could be further
benefitted by including
personnel from local agencies
like DHS and the Oregon Trail
School District, as well as
secondarily affected community
members.
Other considerations for task
force personnel are
socioeconomic status, race, and
age, as failing to address the
needs of specific segments of
the city’s population could
expose the strategic plan to
consequential lapses in its
design and interpretation of the
problems at hand.
1
Page 72 of 373
Task Force Chair:
An effective task force requires
leadership from its chair, who
should be a member that’s
motivated, experienced, and
knowledgeable, amongst other
characteristics that culminate in the
ability to effectively facilitate the
direction and activities of the task
force.
The chair serves an important role
with a multitude of functional
responsibilities, and
After members of the multi-sector
task force have been confirmed, it is
recommended that the members
nominate a leader amongst
themselves and then submit
pertinent information to the City
Council for final approval.
As mentioned above, the chair will
possess a variety of leadership roles
.
and responsibilities, which should
be articulated to the task force prior
to establishing a nominee for the
position.
One of the core responsibilities that
the chair will fulfill is scheduling and
facilitating a series of productive
meetings and presentations related
to the task force’s objectives for the
strategic plan. Another area that the
chair should be competent in is
progress tracking, which allows for a
continuous evaluation of the task
force’s activities, and can greatly
benefit both its efficiency and
effectiveness.
An example from the City of Olympia
provides another desirable
benchmark, as it required that
Finally, communication skills are
valuable assets for the chair, as they
will also be tasked with interfacing
with city staff and maintaining
contact with relevant stakeholders.
City of Sandy Facebook Page
2
3
Page 73 of 373
Task Force Process:
The intricate set of processes within
the task force should operate in an
agile function that allows for
adaptability in light of changes to
internal assumptions or external
factors.
As mentioned above, member
selection should be conducted in
search of a representative group of
qualified individuals that form a
multi-sector task force; the
membership selection process
should also consider including
members from various levels of
employment, as failing to involve
varied perspectives can create blind
spots within the group. Once the
membership and chair have been
solidified, it will be important to
identify roles and deliverables
throughout the project cycle of the
strategic plan development.
Working in conjunction with the
city, the task force should formulate
a team charter, which is a brief
document that aligns the task force
and provides a robust structure and
plan for the various factors a
project entails. This can be
accomplished in 1-2 pages and does
not need to be overly exhaustive, as
its primary functionality is
establishing a robust structure and
plan for the task force. The
document should include the
following elements: the project’s
broader purpose and objectives, the
roles and actors involved both
.
internally and externally, a succinct
project timeline, tasks and
deliverables, and the resources
available to the task force. By
incorporating this simple and
effective tool, the task force can
better prepare for the challenges
and changes that are likely to
emerge during the project cycle.
Community Input:
The strategic plan for social services
will require incorporation of
community input that reveals
insights into the diverse needs of
the city’s expanding and diversifying
population in order to be pertinent.
Open meetings and panels for the
general public could be
implemented in order to achieve
transparent and open lines of
communication with the community,
and ultimately produce valuable
information that would otherwise go
unknown. Including information,
updates, and other documents
related to the strategic plan for
social services on the city’s website
would be an effective method for
communicating the project’s status
and also gauging public interests
and concerns.
Finally, community surveys and
interviews can be an extremely
effective, and low-cost, tool that
provide the public with additional
opportunities to make themselves
heard, and can help the task force
prioritize initiatives or allocate
resources within the strategic plan.
4
Page 74 of 373
Task Force StructurePage 75 of 373
Stakeholder AnalysisPage 76 of 373
Timeline
Task Force Timeline ExamplePage 77 of 373
Responsibility Chart
Page 78 of 373
This first segment of this section
discusses the best practices for
developing social service plans.
The next segment includes our
specific analysis of strategic
plans within the Pacific
Northwest region. It concludes
. . .
with our team's recommendation
for strategic plan development
for Sandy. We have also added a
high level outline for a social
service strategic plan developed
from the project’s general
research and plan analysis.
Page 79 of 373
To develop a successful, holistic social service strategic
plan, a task force must be familiar with important best
practices. We focus on and provide further resources for
three areas of best practices, two within social services
planning, and one on strategic planning in general:
Page 80 of 373
Trauma-Informed
Communities:
As this report has highlighted,
trauma informed approaches are
best practices across a wide
array of disciplines.
Based on our research, best
practice is to utilize a trauma
informed approach throughout
the design, development,
implementation, evaluation and
revision of a social service
strategic plan. Recognizing the
complex, interrelated nature of
individual and community-wide
issues requires finding
comprehensive solutions to the
needs of residents in any given
community.
The social determinants of health
approach is also best practice
and can be used in conjunction
with trauma-informed
approaches as a guide for the
task force as they develop a
dynamic and innovative social
services strategic plan.
Through our research, three
particular trauma informed
resources stood out for
.
utilization in a social service
strategic plan.
Each one incorporates the
impacts of trauma, ACEs, and
tools to build resilience within
the community at large. Some
common themes throughout
these resources include:
Within the following resources
you can find research, tools,
specific examples of their
framework’s implementation, and
general recommendations.
Page 81 of 373
What's Inside:
This online and downloadable
PDF guide is often cited as a
recommended resource by
trauma-informed communities
and organizations. It
incorporates different examples
of community resilience
initiatives and programs as well
as recommendations from
lessons learned.1
2*Community Resilience Cookbook cover
Page 82 of 373
What's Inside:
This document is a brief
introduction to the Family and
Children’s Trust Fund of
Virginia’s (FACT) framework for a
Trauma-Informed Community
Network (TICN).
This document gives basic
guidance for implementing and
maintaining a TICN.3
4*Image from FACT’s Framework PDF
Page 83 of 373
What's Inside:
The Sumner M. Redstone Global
Center for Prevention and
Wellness at George Washington
University oversees the Building
Community Resilience (BCR)
program.
Additionally, among the multiple
communities around the nation
utilizing this framework, the
State of Oregon is a recognized
BCR site.
The general Building Community
Resilience Collaborative website
has useful tools and resources
accessible for free for the public.
From a trauma informed
perspective,
5
6
7
8*Image from BCR PDF
Page 84 of 373
Social Service Integration:
Social Service Integration best
practices simultaneously
promote collaboration among
cross-sector service providers
and facilitates greater access to
services for all residents.
It requires the involvement of
diverse organizations’ and local
leaders’ expertise, knowledge,
and technical skills. This
consequently ensures that the
strategic plan developed will be
inclusive, equitable, and
sustainable in the long term.
Likewise, creating meaningful
ways for the community to
participate in the prioritization
of goals and objectives secures
the likelihood that residents will
provide deep-rooted support for
the ongoing implementation of
the strategic plan.
The following resources include
further research, example cases,
best practices and
recommendations for social
service integration.
Page 85 of 373
What's Inside:
This guide is a collaborative
report from the American Public
Health Association (APHA), the
Public Health Institute, and the
California Department of Public
Health (CDPH) designed to assist
local governments in tackling
complex public health issues.
The framework endorses the
leadership of local governments
to enact “Health in All Policies,”
and utilize the social
determinants of health approach
within their work.
The guide quotes the World
Health Organization’s Statement
on Health in All Policies
recommending:
This guide explores effective
ways to address public health
needs including the collaboration
of providers across diverse
practices. They provide tools and
recommendations such as a
“Root Cause Mapping” exercise,
how to engage stakeholders,
working across sectors, and a
case study of the California
Health in All Policies Task Force.
10*Image from Health in All Policies PDF
9
Page 86 of 373
What's Inside:
This toolkit was developed by the
Rural Health Information Hub
which is supported by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services. It
Within the section of their
introduction module centered on
high needs populations, the
toolkit posits that
Notably, this toolkit provides an
Evidence-Based and Promising
Services Integration Program
Models module that gives
specific examples for service
integration implementation.
Furthermore the toolkit contains
a corresponding webinar titled:
Integrating Health and Human
Services in Rural Communities.
The RHI also provides a Social
Determinants of Health in Rural
Communities Toolkit that may
be of use for the task force.
12*Image from Rural Services Integration Toolkit webpage
10 11
13
14
15
Page 87 of 373
What's Inside:
Thomas Corbett and Jennifer
Noyes of the Institute for
Research on Poverty at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison
developed this work from
research as well as experiences
observing at several different
service integration sites.
Each community is different, and
therefore most initiatives have
unique elements to compliment
the particular context they
operate in.
However, in the following figure,
the authors are able to lay out
common themes found in their
research of varying system
integration models:
17*Figure from Human Services Systems Integration: A Conceptual Framework.
16
Page 88 of 373
Common Themes: The authors note common processes of service
integration planning and implementation:
Systems integration initiatives typically start with an assessment of the
current situation … on what is needed, how well the current configuration of
services meets those needs, and what kinds of changes may be warranted.
1. Assess the Situation -
Perhaps the most critical step in the life cycle of a cross-systems
development exercise is creating a consensus sense of mission. Not only
must an overarching purpose be articulated, but appropriate buy-in must be
secured. In addition, general goals eventually must be translated into
measurable objectives, and investments in both data infrastructure and
management supports to use performance measures
2. Develop a Vision -
All the essential pieces of any system—outreach, enrollment and eligibility of
services, the processes of engagement and service/benefits delivery,
ongoing assessment including troubleshooting and adaptation, and the end
game involving exit and any post-involvement follow-up—must be considered
and transformed to accommodate the new vision of an integrated system. In
the end, this means developing new policies and protocols as well as re-
engineering existing systems.
5. Re-engineer Systems -
Likely and potential partners or collaborators must be identified early in the
process. Strategies must be developed to bring them to the table, to sustain
their interest and participation over time, and ways to work through any
challenges that naturally come up with communication and collaboration
across sectors.
4. Develop a Plan -
Understand what a participant would experience within the existing social
service system - go through each sequential step in the participant’s journey
through the system: outreach, entry, assessment and referral, service
delivery, monitoring and accountability, and exit. At each step, think through
what should be changed to realistically achieve the strategic plan’s vision.
Fully understand why each proposed change is being contemplated to ensure
any questions around changes can be answered.
3. Do a ‘Line-of-Sight’ Exercise -
Finally, the new system must be rigorously assessed in an ongoing fashion. At
a minimum, we must consider the following evaluative challenges: a process
analysis to determine if operational objectives are actually being met;
performance or outcome assessments to determine if specific program
objectives are being approached; population monitoring to assess whether
we can detect any positive movement in the population attributes that the
plan had hoped to influence; and impact evaluations or whether any
successes can specifically be attributed to new interventions.
6. Manage to Outcomes -* from Human Services Systems Integration: A Conceptual Framework18Page 89 of 373
Broader population coverage -
Broader segments of the
community are reached, at least
relative to categorical programs
that are siloed
Coherence - Assistance
encompasses services, benefits,
and opportunities that related to
one another in some rational way
and are consistent in common
purpose
Comprehensiveness - Residents
have access to a greater variety of
services
Convenience - Residents seeking
help can access services more
easily and at less cost
Cost efficiency - Available funds
are used more effectively
Differential systems engagement -
Residents engage the system at
different levels of intensity
(depending on their unique
situation)
Flexible use of funds - Diverse
funding streams are blended or
braided in creative and more
effective ways
Individualization of services -
Greater systems responsiveness to
differentiated presenting problems
and to changing circumstances
Mainstreaming/stigma reduction -
The stigma associated with certain
vulnerable populations and the act
of accessing services is diminished
due to larger segments of the
community being served by blended
systems
Outcomes-driven - Policy
development and service delivery
structures are designed based on
outcomes in contract to input or
process measures
Participatory - Residents
participate in the development of
service planning
Preventive - Shift from crisis
response to prevention
Process efficiency - Activities are
streamlined, redundancies
eliminated, leading to less
duplication of effort
Simultaneity - Residents can access
multiple services at the same time
Timeliness - Assistance more likely
to be provided when needed, not
when convenient for the system
Transformed community/political
perceptions - Communities view
social service systems as
community assets supporting a
healthier community for all
The paper also outlines some challenges of implementing integrated social
services, such as working collaboratively across sectors that may have very
different organizational cultures. Even with those difficulties, the definite
benefits of this kind of framework are many:
A major concept the authors are careful to remind readers of is that
“Systems integration is a process, not an event.” It must entail strategic
planning and oversight, evaluation, and revision over time. They are also sure
to include that a successful and sustainable integrative service system must
include broad support from stakeholders.*Adapted from Human Services Systems Integration: A Conceptual Framework1920
Page 90 of 373
Developing a Strategic Plan:
For particulars around the more
technical aspects of developing a
strategic plan, the Community
Tool Box is an excellent resource.
The Community Tool Box was
developed by the University of
Kansas Center for Community
Health and Development to
assist communities in positive
community development and
social change.
It is a best practice tool
recommended by reputable
agencies including the CDC and
The Community Preventive
Services Task Force, an
.
independent panel established in
1996 by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. The
panel is made up of public health
and prevention experts from a
diverse background of research,
we well as practice and policy
experience in preventative
practices, public health, and
disease prevention.
The free online system includes
numerous step-by-step guides, a
troubleshooting guide, databases
of best practices, online courses,
toolkits, and even a “Ask an
Advisor” source to answer
general community development
work questions.
1
2
3
4 5
6
7
Page 91 of 373
Throughout the resource’s 46 chapters and corresponding toolkits,
best practice themes are similar to those mentioned in our previous
segments - specifically around the importance of:
A need for strong leadership
Coalition building/collaboration amongst
diverse stakeholders
Meaningful community involvement
throughout the development of a strategic
plan and broader initiatives
Shared vision and purpose
Responses and solutions based on the
unique needs of your particular community
Creating specific, measurable action items
beyond broader goals and objectives
Ongoing evaluation and revision
Planning for sustainability
The specific toolkits give clear guidance and related resources for
each phase of planning the task force will engage in:
Assessing community needs and resources
Promoting interest and participation
Developing strategic and action plans
Leadership
Analyzing community problems and
designing and adapting community
interventions
Implementing interventions
Evaluating community initiatives
Sustaining the initiative
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Page 92 of 373
METHODOLOGY
Our team reviewed 40 strategic
plans developed by cities and
counties around the region and
nationally.
From those 40 plans, we narrowed
down a more specific group of 22
strategic plans from cities and
counties in the Pacific Northwest
that focused some aspect or all of
their content on social services for
deeper analysis. Out of the 22
strategic plans, 10 were developed
in communities with populations of
.
less than 40,000. Two plans
reviewed had similar populations to
Sandy: Independence, Oregon 10,154
residents; Newport, Oregon 10,680
residents.
While some of the plans we
analyzed were more expansive
strategic plans, for example some
were comprehensive city plans, all
of the 22 plans we analyzed for best
practices had at least one section of
content that was solely focused on
social services.
Page 93 of 373
Results:
The majority of the strategic
plans included the use of a task
force or steering committee for
the development of their plans.
Those that did not were generally
county-wide plans that had been
produced by Human Service
Departments or similar entities.
Similarly, most plans included the
implementation of an oversight
committee or advisory board to
lead the implementation of the
strategic plan and its specific
action items.
Many plans had extensive
involvement from local service
providers, some of which devoted
staff to serve on the task force or
steering committee developing
the strategic plan.
More than half of plans reviewed
for this report incorporated the
use of the data available from
nonprofit, county, state, and/or
federal sources for background
and context purposes, as well as
for developing their own plan’s
specific action items.
Some plans focused more on
informal community surveys,
town halls, and work groups to
design their strategic plans.
Eleven of the plans conducted
local community needs or
community health assessments
as part of their planning process
for their strategic plan. A total of
seven plans recommended
utilizing community needs
assessments going forward
throughout the implementation
of their strategic plans,
sometimes with a proposal to
conduct an assessment every two
or three years.
A handful of plans explicitly
mention and incorporate social
determinants of health, trauma,
or both.
Overall, the two largest common
themes were substantial
community involvement and
each plan’s specific focus on
local needs and tailored
solutions.
Page 94 of 373
OUT OF 22 PLANS TOTAL*Please see Appendix B for full Excel spreadsheet of strategic plan analysisNUMBER OF PLANS THAT INCLUDEDPage 95 of 373
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations
for the development of a social
services strategic plan for Sandy
are based on our review of
strategic plans and our research
throughout this project.
Based on data discussed in
previous sections, we
recommend approaching the
development of the strategic
plan through a trauma informed
lens.
Community involvement should
be a key focus in plan
development. If possible,
conducting a community health
assessment would be beneficial
for the determination of
comprehensive community
needs, resulting in a plan that is
accurately tailored to the City of
.
Sandy. Inviting community voices
throughout strategic plan
development through surveys,
meetings, and plan draft reviews
is also likely to help foster a
sense of community investment
in the plan as people feel their
viewpoint has been heard and
considered.
For the purposes of Sandy’s
social service strategic plan, we
suggest that the task force
review and follow guidelines that
the Community Tool Box
provides. It includes pieces
specifically focused on vital
strategic planning tasks such as
Creating and Maintaining
Coalitions and Partnerships,
Community Assessments, and
Developing a Strategic Plan and
Action Plans.
1
2
3
4
5
Page 96 of 373
RECOMMENDATIONS:
DATA AND SUSTAINABILITY
The role of administrative data, the
data commonly collected by
agencies such as service statistics,
in evaluating and improving program
impacts should be considered in the
development of the strategic plan.
In a report by the Pew Charitable
Trusts, the role of administrative
data in strategic decision making
was highlighted. Data provides a
means to evaluate the impact a
program is having. Further, when
properly collected, shared, and
analyzed, administrative data has
the potential to expose trends and
correlations in how people utilize
social services that may give rise to
ideas for service improvement.
Several examples in the report
focused on how social service
departments were able to utilize
data to evaluate and improve
efficiency. In Missouri, Medicaid
spending was disproportionately
going to a small group of people. To
address this, data was used to
.
identify high-risk individuals and
then connect them to a “health
home” where the patient's care was
provided by a team of providers.
This model measurably improved
health outcomes for those involved.
Considering how data can be used
both to identify areas for service
improvement and in evaluating
impacts could be helpful in making
specific action recommendations
and planning for program evaluation
in the long run.
In developing the strategic plan, we
recommend considering the
sustainability of the plan beyond
development and into its
implementation. This includes
considering who will take the lead in
plan evaluation and future revision.
From our research it is
recommended that a longer term
entity such as an advisory board is
formed after the task force
completes the initial development
of the plan.
6
Page 97 of 373
The City of Issaquah’s white paper
Building a Healthy Community and
Our Issaquah Strategic Plan are
among these. While Issaquah is a
much larger city of around 40,000,
these reports still contain useful
information.
The first section of Building a
Healthy Community contains
background information on
community health concepts and
the interconnectedness of root
causes such as poverty on health.
Section two uses a literature
review and examples from other
cities to provide a brief overview
of scope, process, and strategy
used in community initiatives
focused on health.
These two sections may be
beneficial for providing additional
context through which to view the
building of a strategic plan. The
remaining part of the paper is
focused on Issaquah specifically.
The Our Issaquah Strategic Plan is
worth reviewing for its layout, easy
readability, and inclusion of clear
success measures for evaluating
the goals.
ISSAQUAH, WA
BUILDING A HEALTHY COMMUNITY
Model Strategic Plans:
While reviewing strategic plans, several stood out as model examples
that would be worth reviewing in plan development:
8*Image from Our Issaquah Strategic Plan PDF
7
Page 98 of 373
The Independence 2020 Vision
Action Plan is also worth
reviewing as the city has a similar
sized community of a little over
10,000 and a comparable budget,
along with a fast growing
population.
The plan’s focus is broader than
social services, but they include
relevant community needs and
services and provide helpful
guidance for the process of
developing a community driven
strategic plan.
The plan’s particular intensive
community outreach is a great
model for making sure that the
community at large is able to
participate in and develop
.
ownership of the eventual
initiatives within the strategic
plan. Their detailed account of
the plan development process is
useful not only for other cities
hoping to replicate the process,
but also for a high level of
transparency to the public.
Likewise, the design of their
Action Plan Chart is helpful and
accessible for the community and
includes important details such
as lead and support organization,
timeline, and funding. (As of the
timing of this report, an updated
Independence 2040 Vision plan is
in the process of being
developed).
INDEPENDENCE, OR
VISION 2020 ACTION PLAN
12*Image from City of Independence Action Plan PDF
9
10
11
Page 99 of 373
The Newport 2040 Vision plan is
also a helpful reference for Sandy
as another Oregon town of
similar size of around 10,000
people. While they have a larger
budget due to the level of
tourism in the town, the area
deals with similar social service
needs and challenges.
Like Independence, this city’s
Vision Plan covers more areas
than just social services, but
again can be useful as a helpful
guide for the task force as they
work through the details of how
to develop a social service
strategic plan for Sandy.
They include a very detailed
visioning process section as well
that includes helpful takeaways
for effective methods to engage
the community in the strategic
planning process.
The prioritized action items and
identified key strategies for
achieving their broader goals are
helpful. They also specify the role
of the city and possible partners
for each item.
Newport has also created a great
outreach brochure summarizing
their 2040 Vision for the public.
NEWPORT, OREGON
VISION 2040 PLAN
17*Image from Vision 2040 PDF
13
14
15
16
Page 100 of 373
We recommend consideration be
given to the Blueprint for a
Healthy Clackamas County
Community Health Improvement
Plan that was adopted in 2018.
The Blueprint’s "Health Equity
Zone" that relates to the Sandy
area is the Oregon Trail Health
Equity Zone.
The Clackamas County Public
Health Division may be a source
in gathering and analyzing
additional data throughout the
task force’s process; further, the
staff involved in the development
and implementation of the
Blueprint for a Healthy
Clackamas County may have
helpful recommendations.
As the County may be able to
provide assistance and possible
grant opportunities, it is
recommended that the task force
reach out to the Clackamas
County Public Health Division
early in their process. This
collaboration may provide
.
opportunities to garner
additional support for Sandy’s
strategic plan, and may even
allow coordination of efforts in
achieving both Sandy’s and the
County’s goals for healthier
communities.
This outreach to the County and
Blueprint should be viewed as a
resource and collaborative
opportunity rather than a stand
in for a Sandy specific strategic
plan.
The City of Sandy has its own
unique needs and therefore
requires its own unique
solutions. What works for Oregon
City may not be applicable to this
community. Sandy’s strategic
plan should be developed out of
the particular needs and best
practice solutions appropriate
for this community while keeping
in mind the Blueprint’s goals and
broader community efforts.
OR E GON TRA IL H E ALTH EQUITY ZONE:
BLUEPRINT FOR A HEALTHY CLACKAMAS COUNTY
20*Image from Blueprint for a Healthy Clackamas County
18
19
Page 101 of 373
The outline provided below includes sections headings and descriptions of
what we believe that section should contain:
HIGH LEVEL OUTLINE
21
Page 102 of 373
Page 103 of 373
Page 104 of 373
There is no doubt moving forward
that this region, as well as the
entire United States, is looking at
what we can only describe as our
“new normal” in the wake of the
COVID-19 pandemic.
While the exact outcomes of this
tragedy are unclear, it is certain
that the most vulnerable members
of our community will face adverse
effects including their ability to
access services. Additionally, our
overall public health is now in a
more tenuous place than we've
seen in recent history.
It is thus even more critical that
growing cities such as Sandy take
a critical eye to the manner in
which these social services are
currently provided and use an
equity-informed lens to adapt to
this new landscape.
With the recommendations and
best practices outlined within this
report, a Social Services Task
.
Force has the opportunity to
accomplish the completion of a
Social Services Strategic Plan that
is trauma-informed, inclusive, and
cost-effective.
A task force consisting of
community leaders from the social
services sector, as well as robust
community involvement, ensures
that the resulting strategic plan
utilizes localized wisdom and
expertise to inform the goals and
actions of the plan.
We firmly believe that this
approach will provide a stronger
coordination of services, allow
increased accessibility to services
for residents, and create a
stronger, more resilient Sandy
community.
Through this purposeful, strategic
social service planning our
community can genuinely be one
of the best places to raise a family,
find meaningful employment, and
retire.
Page 105 of 373
Please find the references used within this report
organized by subject section in the following pages:
Page 106 of 373
Page 107 of 373
Page 108 of 373
Page 109 of 373
Page 110 of 373
Page 111 of 373
Page 112 of 373
Page 113 of 373
Page 114 of 373
Page 115 of 373
Page 116 of 373
Page 117 of 373
Page 118 of 373
Page 119 of 373
Appendix A:
Full Questionnaire Analysis Report
Raw Survey Data
Appendix B:
Strategic Plan Analysis Spreadsheet
Appendix C:
PSU Project Tools
Please find the additional data from this report within the
following appendices:
Page 120 of 373
Page 121 of 373
CITY C OUNCIL QUE ST IONNAIR E:
Page 122 of 373
Page 123 of 373
SANDY CO NNECT QUESTI ON NAIRE:
Page 124 of 373
Page 125 of 373
Page 126 of 373
Page 127 of 373
Page 128 of 373
Page 129 of 373
Page 130 of 373
Page 131 of 373
Page 132 of 373
Page 133 of 373
Page 134 of 373
Page 135 of 373
Page 136 of 373
Page 137 of 373
Page 138 of 373
Page 139 of 373
Page 140 of 373
Page 141 of 373
Page 142 of 373
Page 143 of 373
Page 144 of 373
Page 145 of 373
Page 146 of 373
Page 147 of 373
Page 148 of 373
Page 149 of 373
Page 150 of 373
Page 151 of 373
Page 152 of 373
Page 153 of 373
Page 154 of 373
Page 155 of 373
Page 156 of 373
Page 157 of 373
Page 158 of 373
Page 159 of 373
Page 160 of 373
Page 161 of 373
Page 162 of 373
OpportunitiesStrengthsWeaknessesThreatsSWOT AnalysisPage 163 of 373
Project Logical Framework: GoalsPage 164 of 373
Project Logical Framework: GoalsPage 165 of 373
Logical Framework: PurposePage 166 of 373
Risk Analysis & Mitigation PlanProbable ImpactsRisksRisk MinimizationMeasurePage 167 of 373
Stakeholder AnalysisPage 168 of 373
Social ServicesTask Force StructurePage 169 of 373
Responsibility Chart
Page 170 of 373
SuperStrategic Social Services: Planning for a Resilient CommunityGoalsProgramLevelProjectLevelPurposePage 171 of 373
Timeline
Task Force Timeline ExamplePage 172 of 373
Cost Estimation(in hours)Page 173 of 373
Cost Estimation Cont.(in hours)Page 174 of 373
Cost Estimation Cont.(in hours)Page 175 of 373
Monitoring, Reporting, andEvaluation PlanPage 176 of 373
Monitoring, Reporting, andEvaluation Plan Cont.Page 177 of 373
SustainabilityPage 178 of 373
SustainabilityPage 179 of 373
Page 180 of 373
Task Force Timeline Example
Page 181 of 373
By creating a formal Task Force to develop a
Social Services Strategic Plan, the City of Sandy
can promote greater accessibility, coordination,
and collaboration of all local social services.
PLANNING FOR A RESILIENT COMMUNITY
Cities all over the nation are
working to find effective
ways to build supportive,
resilient communities where
residents can truly thrive. As
Sandy continues to invest in
.
hat if we truly understood
the underlying causes to
some of our most complex
community issues like
homelessness, drug & alcohol
addiction, domestic violence,
& mental health challenges?
What if we could then work
.
innovatively to reduce their
negative effects?
What would the impact of
another public health crisis be
like if robust, collaborative,
and locally provided services
were already in place?
W
strategic planning for
infrastructure and basic
services for its growing
community, it is imperative
we likewise focus attention
on social services needs.
City of Sandy Facebook
Page 182 of 373
What will the process look like?
1. Formation of the task force
2. Community needs identification through
existing information or, ideally, a community
health/needs assessment
3. Collaborative development of a Social Services
Strategic Plan addressing community needs
4. Strategic plan approval and implementation
5. Convene Social Service's Advisory Board for
ongoing sustainability
T
This proposal, & additional
comprehensive report, are to
provide the Sandy City
Council with the compiled
research, best practices &
recommendations for social
service strategic planning as
well as providing assistance
for the task force itself in
developing a strategic plan.
hrough purposeful, strategic
social service planning our
community can genuinely be
one of the best places to
raise a family, find meaningful
employment, & retire.
With better coordinated
preventative services &
enhanced "down-stream"
approaches, the city's
leadership can help mitigate
future community costs.
Beyond better public dollar
utilization, implementing a
.
social service strategic plan
also brings with it more local
economic vitality.
With increased locally
provided services comes
additional local higher wage
jobs, workforce development
opportunities, & sustainable
community development.
With higher wage jobs comes
potential tax revenue, small
business support, hands on
educational opportunities for
youth, & more.
Page 183 of 373
Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 6, 2020
From Mike Walker, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Hoodview Disposal & Recycling Rate Increase Request
Background:
Hoodview Disposal & Recycling holds an exclusive franchise with the City of Sandy to
provide the collection and transportation of solid waste, recyclable materials, and yard
debris within city boundaries. Per article 7 of the agreement, the franchisee is entitled to
a special rate review. Rates are set by City Council resolution.
The franchisee has requested a work session with the city council to present the rate
request and implementation options and discuss the circumstances and status of the
recycling markets. A cover letter, proposed rates, and the presentation are enclosed.
Page 184 of 373
Post Office Box 1110 Canby, Oregon 97013 (503) 668-8300 (503) 659-2107
June 29, 2020
Mr. Jordan Wheeler City Manager
City of Sandy
39250 Pioneer Boulevard
Sandy, Oregon 97055
Re: Solid waste and recycling rate increase proposal
Dear Mr. Wheeler,
Thank you for meeting with us on June 26th to review the details behind our proposed solid waste and
recycling rate increase request. As we agreed at that meeting, our team will be presenting our rate proposal to the City Council at their July 6th work session. We have prepared a power point presentation
for that meeting and have forwarded the file to you by e-mail. We have also sent to you our fiscal 2019
reviewed financial results, and a copy of our proprietary rate model.
As we discussed with the City Council at their October 18, 2018 business meeting, the recycling business
is causing severe financial challenges for us and the entire U.S. industry. At that meeting, we told the
Council it costed us $130 per ton to dispose the Sandy recyclable that are collected via your curbside
recycling program. Today, that disposal fee is $138 per ton. To put this in perspective, the comparable tipping fee for solid waste at any Metro franchised transfer station is $97.45 per ton. It would be far
cheaper to dispose of the recyclables as municipal solid waste than to collect them separately, and truck
them to the region’s recycling processors. Also, the trend is just as discouraging. We expect to see the
mixed recyclables disposal fee head toward $150 per ton by the end of 2020.
We look forward to visiting with the City Council at their July 6th work session. If you have any questions
concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. My office telephone
number is 503.668.8300.
Very truly yours,
Andy Kahut
Andy Kahut
President
Page 185 of 373
Solid Waste & Recycling Rates Update
City Council Briefing
Hoodview Disposal & Recycling, Inc.
Date: July 6, 2020
Page 186 of 373
Why we are here and what we want from you
Current status of recycling markets
Options for the annual clean-up program
Hoodview’s proposal for the implementation of rate
increases for solid waste and recycling
Neighboring communities’ rates
Sandy City Council Presentation July 6, 2020 2
Tonight’s Agenda
Page 187 of 373
3Sandy City Council Presentation July 6, 2020
Why We Are Here and What We Want From You
In September 2019 we informed the Council of our intent to
request special rate review under Section 7.5 of the
franchise
In fiscal 2019, Hoodview lost 8.47% before taxes; the net loss
form Sandy operations was $172,387 on total revenues of
$2,036,148
We are requesting general rate increases to be phased-in on
September 1, 2020 and on March 1, 2021. Page 188 of 373
Sandy City Council Presentation July 6, 2020 4
At your October 18, 2018 City Council meeting, we told you it costs
$130 per ton to dispose of recyclable materials collected via Sandy’s
curbside recycling program.
Since that time, the cost of disposal of these materials has risen to
$138 per ton. We expect to see that number increase to $150 per
ton by the end of 2020.
To put this in perspective, the comparable tipping fee for solid
waste at any Metro franchised transfer station is $97.45 per ton.
The Chinese government has passed a domestic law forbidding all
Chinese processors from accepting foreign recyclables.
Current Status of Recycling Markets
Page 189 of 373
Sandy City Council Presentation June 6, 2020 5
Option For Replacing the Annual Cleanup Day Program
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we cannot implement the curbside
annual cleanup program this year.
In the other communities we serve, we have replaced the fixed
date curbside program with a on-call voucher program. This
personalized program allows customers to call us for a one time per
year pick up of their waste at their convenience.Page 190 of 373
Sandy City Council Presentation July 6, 2020 6
Hoodview’s rate increase proposal
Our fiscal 2019 financials and our rate model have been delivered
to City management.
Based on revenue requirements, we are requesting a 25.15%
general rate increase. This translates to $6.44 per month to the
average single-family residential customer (35-gallon cart with
recycling and yard debris).
Recognizing the magnitude of this increase, we are proposing to
phase the increases in over one (1) year as follows:
On September 1, 2020 implement one half for the increase;
$3.22 per month to the average single-family customer
On March 1, 2021 implement the other half of the increase;
$3.22 per month to the average single-family customerPage 191 of 373
Sandy City Council Presentation July 6, 2020 7
Neighboring Communities’ rates
$23.32
$24.61
$25.59
$26.24
$26.94
$27.00
$27.85
$29.50
$30.06
$32.49
$33.15
$33.70
$33.85
$34.14
$- $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40
Washington County (Urban Areas) - Waste Management
Canby - Canby Disposal
Sandy - Hoodview
Hillsboro - multiple haulers
West Linn - West Linn Disposal
Tualatin - Pride Disposal
Beaverton - Waste Management
Portland - multiple haulers
Lake Oswego - Republic Services
Tigard - Pride Disposal
Portland (Eastside EOW Garbage) - multiple haulers
Clackamas County (Urban Areas) - multiple haulers
Milwaukie - Waste Management
Gresham - multiple haulers
32/35-gallon Cart Monthly Rates for Portland Area Communities (June, 2020)Page 192 of 373
City of Sandy
Rate Proposal for Residential Collection - Effective July 1, 2020
Regularly Scheduled Curbside Collection Services
Basic Service
Size of
Solid Waste
Receptacle Service Frequency
Estimated Number
of Accounts
Current Rate January
1, 2020
Proposed Rate July
1, 2020
Estimated Annual
Rate Revenues
20-gal cart 1 pickup/week 187 $ 21.50 $ 26.91 $60,378
35-gal cart 1 pickup/week 2,444 $ 25.59 $ 32.03 $939,266
60-gal cart 1 pickup/week 432 $ 40.95 $ 51.25 $265,668
90-gal cart 1 pickup/week 110 $ 45.55 $ 57.01 $75,249
32-gal can 1 pickup/month 136 $ 14.33 $ 17.93 $29,269
Yard Debris Subscription 1 pickup/week 28 $ 6.07 $ 7.60 $2,553
Recycling Only Service 1 pickup/week 25 -$ 0 $0
Extra Hauling/On-Call Collection Services
Type of Service Size of Receptacle
Estimated Number
of Accounts
Current Rate January
1, 2020
Proposed Rate July
1, 2020
Estimated Annual
Rate Revenues
Extra Trash (average/year over last two years)32-gal can or bag 944 $ 6.65 $ 8.32 $7,859
Extra Yard Debris (average/year over last two years)32-gal can or bag 391 $ 2.95 $ 3.69 $1,444
Backyard/Sideyard Service
Description Distance from Curb to Receptacle
Estimated Number
of Accounts
Current Rate January
1, 2020
Proposed Rate July
1, 2020
Estimated Annual
Rate Revenues
Walk-In or Drive-In Service:
50 feet or less 1 $ 41.41 $ 51.83 $622
Drive In Service:
51 - 100 feet 0 $ 44.52 $ 55.71 $0
101 - 200 feet 0 $ 47.60 $ 59.56 $0
201 - 400 feet 0 $ 53.79 $ 67.31 $0
401 - 600 feet 0 $ 59.98 $ 75.06 $0
601 feet or more 0 $ 66.17 $ 82.81 $0
Miscellaneous Charges
Service Type Description
Estimated Number
of Accounts
Current Rate January
1, 2020
Proposed Rate July
1, 2020
Estimated Annual
Rate Revenues
Call back charge Extra fee paid if customer did not set Receptacles
Curbside for Collection before Company's vehicle
passes customer's house and customer requests
Company to return to Premises to pickup materials
N.A.$ 6.29 $ 7.88 N.A.
Restart service Extra fee paid if customer stops and than restarts
Collection services more than once during the year
or when service is reinstated after it has been
stopped due to non-payment
N.A.$ 11.02 $ 13.80 N.A.
Cart delivery/pickup Extra fee paid if customer requests a change in Cart
size more than once per year
N.A.$ 14.75 $ 18.45 N.A.
Cart replacement Extra fee paid if customer requires Cart
replacement (one replacement per year at no cost)
N.A.At cost At cost N.A.
Hourly fee for services Truck and one person N.A.$ 66.11 $ 82.73 N.A.
Hourly fee for services Truck and two persons N.A.$ 89.28 $ 111.74 N.A.
Tire collection Fee per tire for 18" and under rim size, tire off the
rim
N.A.$ 9.88 $ 12.36 N.A.
Tire collection Fee per tire for 18" and under rim size, tire on the
rim
N.A.$ 11.51 $ 14.40 N.A.
Furniture and recyclable appliances Fee per item Collected N.A.Per quote Per quote N.A.
Extra monthly fee paid by able-bodied customers for
backyard or sideyard Collection of all Customer
Receptacles (including Solid Waste, Recyclable
Materials, and Yard Debris Receptacles)
Page 193 of 373
City of Sandy
Rate Proposal for Residential Collection - Phased in on September 1, 2020 and on March 1, 2021
Regularly Scheduled Curbside Collection Services
Basic Service
Size of
Solid Waste
Receptacle Service Frequency
Estimated Number of
Accounts
Current Rate January
1, 2020
Proposed Rate
September 1, 2020
Proposed Rate March
1, 2021
20-gal cart 1 pickup/week 187 $ 21.50 $ 24.20 $ 26.91
35-gal cart 1 pickup/week 2,444 $ 25.59 $ 28.81 $ 32.03
60-gal cart 1 pickup/week 432 $ 40.95 $ 46.10 $ 51.25
90-gal cart 1 pickup/week 110 $ 45.55 $ 51.28 $ 57.01
32-gal can 1 pickup/month 136 $ 14.33 $ 16.13 $ 17.93
Yard Debris Subscription 1 pickup/week 28 $ 6.07 $ 6.83 $ 7.60
Recycling Only Service 1 pickup/week 25 -$ -$ -$
Extra Hauling/On-Call Collection Services
Type of Service Size of Receptacle
Estimated Number of
Accounts
Current Rate January
1, 2020
Proposed Rate July 1,
2020
Estimated Annual
Rate Revenues
Extra Trash (average/year over last two years)32-gal can or bag 944 $ 6.65 $ 7.49 $ 8.32
Extra Yard Debris (average/year over last two years)32-gal can or bag 391 $ 2.95 $ 3.32 $ 3.69
Backyard/Sideyard Service
Description Distance from Curb to Receptacle
Estimated Number of
Accounts
Current Rate January
1, 2020
Proposed Rate July 1,
2020
Estimated Annual
Rate Revenues
Walk-In or Drive-In Service:
50 feet or less 1 $ 41.41 $ 46.62 $ 51.83
Drive In Service:
51 - 100 feet 0 $ 44.52 $ 50.11 $ 55.71
101 - 200 feet 0 $ 47.60 $ 53.58 $ 59.56
201 - 400 feet 0 $ 53.79 $ 60.55 $ 67.31
401 - 600 feet 0 $ 59.98 $ 67.52 $ 75.06
601 feet or more 0 $ 66.17 $ 74.49 $ 82.81
Miscellaneous Charges
Service Type Description
Estimated Number of
Accounts
Current Rate January
1, 2020
Proposed Rate July 1,
2020
Estimated Annual
Rate Revenues
Call back charge Extra fee paid if customer did not set Receptacles
Curbside for Collection before Company's vehicle
passes customer's house and customer requests
Company to return to Premises to pickup materials
N.A.$ 6.29 $ 7.09 $ 7.88
Restart service Extra fee paid if customer stops and than restarts
Collection services more than once during the year
or when service is reinstated after it has been
stopped due to non-payment
N.A.$ 11.02 $ 12.41 $ 13.80
Cart delivery/pickup Extra fee paid if customer requests a change in Cart
size more than once per year
N.A.$ 14.75 $ 16.60 $ 18.45
Cart replacement Extra fee paid if customer requires Cart
replacement (one replacement per year at no cost)
N.A.At cost At cost At cost
Hourly fee for services Truck and one person N.A.$ 66.11 $ 74.42 $ 82.73
Hourly fee for services Truck and two persons N.A.$ 89.28 $ 100.51 $ 111.74
Tire collection Fee per tire for 18" and under rim size, tire off the
rim
N.A.$ 9.88 $ 11.12 $ 12.36
Tire collection Fee per tire for 18" and under rim size, tire on the
rim
N.A.$ 11.51 $ 12.96 $ 14.40
Furniture and recyclable appliances Fee per item Collected N.A.Per quote Per quote Per quote
Extra monthly fee paid by able-bodied customers for
backyard or sideyard Collection of all Customer
Receptacles (including Solid Waste, Recyclable
Materials, and Yard Debris Receptacles)
Page 194 of 373
MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Monday, June 15, 2020 6:00 PM
COUNCIL PRESENT: Stan Pulliam, Mayor, Jeremy Pietzold, Council President, Jan Lee, Councilor, Carl
Exner, Councilor, and Bethany Shultz, Councilor
COUNCIL ABSENT: John Hamblin, Councilor and Laurie Smallwood, Councilor
STAFF PRESENT: Jordan Wheeler, City Manager, Jeff Aprati, City Recorder, Emily Meharg, Senior
Planner, Greg Brewster, IT/SandyNet Director, Kelly O'Neill, Development Services
Director, Mike Walker, Public Works Director, and Tanya Richardson, Community
Services Director, Chris Crean, City Attorney
MEDIA PRESENT: Sandy Post
1. MEETING FORMAT NOTE
The Council conducted this meeting electronically using the Zoom video conference platform.
A video recording of the meeting is available on the City's YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbYEclgC6VW_mV2UJGyvYfg
2. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION - 6:00 PM
2.1. Facilities Assessment & Space Needs Analysis
Staff Report - 0279
The Finance Director stated that the analysis in the report would help the City
develop a robust capital improvement plan that prioritizes the City's facility
investment needs. 242 separate assets are identified in the report. 144 are in
great or good condition. 47 need significant repairs in the short-term. The
report ranks the needed repairs, taking into account factors such as potential
public risk in the case of building failure. Approximately $10 million in needed
repairs over 30 years is identified in the report.
Councilor Pietzold asked whether the data in the report could be updated and
maintained in the future. Staff confirmed that it could be updated, though
some additional effort on staff's part would be required.
Page 1 of 28
Page 195 of 373
City Council
June 15, 2020
Councilor Lee asked why the HVAC system in the library was listed as in need
of upgrading. Staff responded this was due to the airflow impairment caused
by the number of bookshelves that have been added.
Councilor Exner asked about water system infrastructure. Staff responded
that water infrastructure is being addressed separately in the Water Master
Plan update process. This report looked at facilities that house City staff,
including those that are open to the public.
Councilor Lee asked whether efforts are being made to consider facility
investments that would increase efficiency and resiliency. Staff responded
that any facility improvement efforts would include strong consideration of
high-efficiency equipment, such as HVAC and water heaters.
Mayor Pulliam asked to what extent Directors have discretion to make facility
improvements to the buildings they manage, rather than needing approval
from Administration. The Finance Director stated that though Directors will
continue to have discretion, the facilities assessment, and ultimately the
capital improvement plan, will be available as information resources. Mayor
Pulliam asked whether this analysis could lead to more strategic, consolidated
purchasing/contracting efforts. The Finance Director confirmed that the data
now available would allow for large purchases, such as new plumbing, to be
coordinated across facilities to achieve economies of scale. The City Manager
stated that further coordination can be fostered through the budget process,
where individual department needs are identified.
Councilor Exner asked what the process would be to decide to re-purpose a
building if needed. The Finance Director stated it would require an effort to
determine the costs of making needed repairs in addition to considering space
needs. Councilor Exner cautioned against waiting too long to address known
space deficiencies. The City Manager stated that when the estimated cost of
repairing and/or expanding an existing facility exceeds the estimated cost of
building from scratch, new construction should be seriously considered. He
also mentioned the possibility of changing practices regarding remote
working. The City Manager identified SandyNet as a program with significant
facility needs, particularly in the future. He said the facilities analysis would
position the City to make strategic investment decisions.
The Finance Director outlined the space needs portion of the report, stating
that there is a 14,000 square foot deficit across the City that is expected to
increase to 26,000 in 10 years. City Hall has a large circulation area currently,
which could be repurposed for storage or other needs. The lack of conference
Page 2 of 28
Page 196 of 373
City Council
June 15, 2020
room space was also emphasized. The Library was recognized as having a
significant space deficit. The report identified a current FTE deficit of 11,
which is projected to increase to 24 after 10 years.
Councilor Exner asked whether remote working capabilities developed during
COVID-19 could be used to address some of the space deficiencies. Staff
responded that such opportunities likely do exist (though not until distancing
needs have abated), but this report does not address that issue directly. It was
noted that the need for paper document processing, in-person contact with
the public, and in-person meetings will not disappear.
3. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM
4. Pledge of Allegiance
5. Roll Call
6. Changes to the Agenda
(none)
7. Public Comment
Kathleen Walker: acknowledged the recent Black Lives Matter demonstrations and
the cooperation with Sandy Police. She hopes to see involvement from local elected
officials in the future, and hopes the School Board will ban the Confederate flag on
school grounds.
Cary Mallon, 37537 Rachael Drive: asked whether Gunderson Road will be used for
construction access during the development of the Bailey Meadows subdivision. He
also asked what the timeline for construction will be. Staff responded that it appears
ODOT will approve use of Gunderson for construction traffic, which is included in the
development agreement. Staff also stated that the construction timeline is uncertain;
it could begin this summer.
8. Consent Agenda
8.1. City Council Minutes
Moved by Jeremy Pietzold, seconded by Jan Lee
Adopt the Consent Agenda.
CARRIED. 5-0
Ayes: Stan Pulliam, Jeremy Pietzold, Jan Lee, Carl Exner, and
Page 3 of 28
Page 197 of 373
City Council
June 15, 2020
Bethany Shultz
Absent: John Hamblin and Laurie Smallwood
9. New Business
9.1. Ordinance 2020-11: Approving Annexation of One Property and Right-Of-Way
Totaling Approximately 6.42 Acres and Assignment of Single Family Residential
(SFR) and Parks and Open Space (POS) Zoning in Conformance with the Urban
Growth Boundary Expansion in File No. 20-002 UGB
Staff Report - 0276
Abstentions: none
Conflicts of Interest: none
Ex Parte Contacts: Councilor Exner stated he had visited the site but had no
specific conversations about this application. Mayor Pulliam made the same
declaration.
Challenges to the Hearing Body: none
Staff Report: The Development Services Director summarized the annexation
application. His presentation slides are attached to these minutes.
Applicant Presentation:
Chris Goodell, AKS Engineering, 12965 SW Herman Rd, Tualatin, OR: he agreed
with the findings and recommendations provided in the staff report. He
requested that the Council follow staff's recommendation for approval, and
noted that it had been approved by Clackamas County.
Public Testimony:
Testimony in Favor: (none)
Testimony Opposed:
Kathleen Walker, 15920 SE Bluff Road: stated that nothing in the development
agreement spoke to what would happen to the designated parkland with
respect to SMC 17.84. She would like to see the developer clear, grade, and
seed the land, and provide sidewalk access. She read an email sent from the
applicant's attorney to the appellants' attorney that expressed the applicant's
15 - 21
Page 4 of 28
Page 198 of 373
City Council
June 15, 2020
intention to voluntarily take certain actions in furtherance of park
development, and asked that the developer be held to the commitments
expressed in the email.
Neutral Testimony: (none)
Staff Recap: the Development Services Director reiterated staff's
recommendation of approval. He stated that SMC 17.86 is not applicable to
the annexation question before the Council, and thus the Council could not
add such conditions to their approval of this application. This was confirmed
by the City Attorney. The City Manager stated that it may be prudent to
incorporate the development of the park into the City's larger parks planning
process.
Applicant's Rebuttal: Garrett Stephenson, applicant's attorney, 1211 SW 5th
Ave, Portland, OR: stated that the decision on the annexation should not
address park development, and that the applicant would honor any
commitments made. He thanked staff and expressed his hope for a quick
approval of the matter.
**The public hearing was closed (motion below)**
Council Discussion: Councilor Pietzold stated that the Council had reviewed
these issues over the past several months.
Ordinance Readings: Councilor Pietzold performed the first reading of the
ordinance by title only; the City Recorder performed the second reading by
title only.
Moved by Carl Exner, seconded by Jeremy Pietzold
Close the public hearing.
CARRIED. 5-0
Ayes: Stan Pulliam, Jeremy Pietzold, Jan Lee, Carl Exner, and
Bethany Shultz
Absent: John Hamblin and Laurie Smallwood
Moved by Jeremy Pietzold, seconded by Jan Lee
Approve the first reading of Ordinance 2020-11.
Page 5 of 28
Page 199 of 373
City Council
June 15, 2020
CARRIED. 5-0
Ayes: Stan Pulliam, Jeremy Pietzold, Jan Lee, Carl Exner, and
Bethany Shultz
Absent: John Hamblin and Laurie Smallwood
Moved by Jeremy Pietzold, seconded by Carl Exner
Approve the second reading of Ordinance 2020-11.
CARRIED. 5-0
Ayes: Stan Pulliam, Jeremy Pietzold, Jan Lee, Carl Exner, and
Bethany Shultz
Absent: John Hamblin and Laurie Smallwood
PowerPoint Slides - 20-001
9.2. Ordinance 2020-14: Amending Section 15.28 of the Sandy Municipal Code
Related to System Development Charges
Staff Report - 0278
Abstentions: none
Conflicts of Interest: none
Staff Report: the City Manager stated that the Council considered this issue at
its work session on June 1, 2020. The Public Works Director stated that the
impetus for making these changes came from the negotiated development
agreement for the Bailey Meadows subdivision. The new code provisions
would allow SDCs to be adjusted to account for changes in construction costs
over time, and would allow the Council to approve SDC credits that that could
accrue directly to developers, who could then distribute them to home
builders who purchase lots in a development.
Public Testimony:
Testimony in Favor: (none)
Testimony Opposed: (none)
Neutral Testimony: (none)
Staff Recap: this proposal was reviewed by the Council at their work session on
Page 6 of 28
Page 200 of 373
City Council
June 15, 2020
June 1.
**The public hearing was closed (motion below)**
Council Discussion: none
Ordinance Readings: the City Recorder performed the first and second
readings of the ordinance by title only.
Moved by Jeremy Pietzold, seconded by Bethany Shultz
Close the public hearing.
CARRIED. 5-0
Ayes: Stan Pulliam, Jeremy Pietzold, Jan Lee, Carl Exner, and
Bethany Shultz
Absent: John Hamblin and Laurie Smallwood
Moved by Jeremy Pietzold, seconded by Jan Lee
Approve the first reading of Ordinance 2020-14.
CARRIED. 5-0
Ayes: Stan Pulliam, Jeremy Pietzold, Jan Lee, Carl Exner, and
Bethany Shultz
Absent: John Hamblin and Laurie Smallwood
Moved by Carl Exner, seconded by Bethany Shultz
Approve the second reading of Ordinance 2020-14.
CARRIED. 5-0
Ayes: Stan Pulliam, Jeremy Pietzold, Jan Lee, Carl Exner, and
Bethany Shultz
Absent: John Hamblin and Laurie Smallwood
9.3. Resolution 2020-15: Adding Gunderson Road and Olson Street to the City's
Transportation System Plan Capital Improvement Plan
Staff Report - 0280
The City Manager explained that this resolution would add the Gunderson
Page 7 of 28
Page 201 of 373
City Council
June 15, 2020
Road and Olson Street projects to the Transportation System Plan CIP project
list, as the Council discussed at its June 1 work session.
Councilor Exner stated it may be prudent for the Council to revisit capital
project priorities. The City Manager stated that public input and Council
review will occur as part of the Transportation System Plan update.
Moved by Jeremy Pietzold, seconded by Carl Exner
Adopt resolution 2020-15.
CARRIED. 5-0
Ayes: Stan Pulliam, Jeremy Pietzold, Jan Lee, Carl Exner, and
Bethany Shultz
Absent: John Hamblin and Laurie Smallwood
9.4. Ordinance 2020-13: Amending Chapter 17.78 of the Sandy Municipal Code
Related to Annexations
Staff Report - 0277
Abstentions: none
Conflicts of Interest: none
Staff Report: the Senior Planner stated that one of the main intentions of the
code changes is to clarify the requirements related to public facilities and
services, and how any impacts to such facilities and services from new
properties would be mitigated. Several exemptions were included for
properties less than one acre, island annexations, and properties with
annexation agreements. The notification requirements are also proposed to
be increased. Staff originally proposed increasing the annexation waiting
period for significant tree removal from five years to ten years. The Planning
Commission voted to keep it at five years. PowerPoint slides are attached to
these minutes.
Public Testimony:
Testimony in Favor: none
Testimony Opposed: Kathleen Walker, 15920 SE Bluff Rd: annexed properties
should have to contribute financially not only toward local roads, but also
arterials and collectors. Olson Street should have been paid for by the
22 - 28
Page 8 of 28
Page 202 of 373
City Council
June 15, 2020
developer, for example. New developments must dedicate land for parks as
provided in the Parks and Trails Master Plan. They should be required to
disclose intended zone changes up front. The waiting period for tree removal
should be increased to ten years. Proposed annexations should be posted on
the City website with maps and explanations.
Neutral Testimony: Stephen Winkler, 17170 Beers #3: the proposal is too
vague and does not sufficiently outline what developers will be required to do
in support of the public interest.
Staff Recap:
Many of the proposed code changes were drafted by the City Attorney's office.
The Development Services Director stated that the intention of the changes
was not to increase costs for small property owners, but rather to avoid some
of the legal challenges experienced with recent developments. He stated that
proposed amendments to the portion of the code covering subdivision
developments would be forthcoming.
The City Attorney stated that the proposed changes would require developers
to demonstrate how impacts to the City's infrastructure could be mitigated.
Annexation decisions ultimately hinge on whether the Council believes it is in
the public interest; the Council has discretion over the decision.
Councilor Shultz asked for clarification on the Planning Commission's
reasoning regarding the annexation waiting period after clear cutting trees.
The Senior Planner stated that even 10 years of tree growth would not result
in trees of substantial size.
Councilor Exner stated that based on his professional experience in forestry, a
5 year time period is too short.
**The public hearing was closed (motion below)**
Council Discussion:
Councilor Pietzold stated that he supports the 10 year waiting period
regarding trees, but is uncomfortable with the other proposed changes. He
stated that annexations are rare, and expressed concerns with the red tape
that would be experienced by small mom and pop property owners, and with
the notion that property owners would be required to navigate a lengthy
process both at the annexation level and the development approval level. He
Page 9 of 28
Page 203 of 373
City Council
June 15, 2020
emphasized that developments would still be scrutinized in the land use
process, even without added annexation requirements. He stated that
developments should pay for themselves, but urged that changes be made to
the Development Code to ensure this, not to the annexation process.
Councilor Exner concurred with Councilor Pietzold. He added that many
changes could occur between the time a property is annexed and the time a
development application is received, making the time of development the
more appropriate point to consider these issues. He stated that master plans
should not be enforceable until they are finalized. He supports a 10 year
waiting period for clear cutting.
Councilor Lee stated there is value in having more sideboards in the UGB
process. She asked the City Attorney about how other cities handle this issue.
The City Attorney stated that there is a wide range of approaches to
annexation and that the proposal before the Council falls in the middle of the
range. The public interest standard is becoming increasingly common, and can
apply to a wide range of concerns including schools and fire protection.
The Development Services Director clarified that under the new proposed
requirements would not apply to properties under one acre, island
annexations, or any property that executes an annexation agreement with the
City. Thus, under an annexation agreement, property owners with no
intention to develop in the near future could potentially be allowed to bypass
the new requirements until their intention changes.
Councilor Exner expressed concerns about proposed surveying requirements.
The Development Services Director stated that the surveying requirements
only apply to flood and slope hazard overlays. He stated that requiring this at
the time of annexation would save the property owner from undergoing a
Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change amendment in the future.
Councilor Pietzold reiterated his view that these issues should be dealt with at
the time of development, not during the annexation process. He indicated
that certain properties in the city still have not developed 20 years after their
annexation.
The City Attorney stated that relying only on the Development Code later in
process would limit the discretion of the City. An annexation agreement,
however, would remain enforceable in the future when the property is
developed and could include additional requirements. He also clarified that in
the case of properties with wetlands, requiring a survey at annexation would
Page 10 of 28
Page 204 of 373
City Council
June 15, 2020
avoid properties being assigned a certain zone initially, followed by another at
the time of development if it is determined that a fish overlay designation is
necessary.
Councilor Exner asked about the usefulness of imposing development-related
requirements and disclosures at the time of annexation when it may be many
years before a property is ultimately developed.
The City Attorney stated that much about a potential development is
unknowable at the annexation stage, but it is possible to require some
fundamental analysis to provide the City a high degree of confidence that the
necessary infrastructure will be in place in the case of a future development.
He stated that the challenges experienced with Bailey Meadows likely would
have been avoided under such a system.
Councilor Exner reiterated that development issues should be dealt with at
the development stage.
Mayor Pulliam indicated that the City has the most power and discretion at
the annexation stage. He stated that if the proposed changes are
implemented and prove unsatisfactory, the code can simply be changed again.
He stated that as leaders, the Council should perform its due diligence at the
front end of the process to proactively manage the community's rapid growth
and take control of the future. He also supported the increased notification
standards for surrounding properties.
Councilor Shultz expressed support for the proposed changes, which she felt
would help the City avoid repeating the challenges experienced with Bailey
Meadows.
Councilor Lee concurred, stating the City needs to be out in front of these
issues and that the requirements could be amended in the future if needed.
Ordinance Reading: the City Recorder performed the first reading of the
ordinance by title only.
Moved by Jeremy Pietzold, seconded by Carl Exner
Close the public hearing.
CARRIED. 5-0
Ayes: Stan Pulliam, Jeremy Pietzold, Jan Lee, Carl Exner, and
Page 11 of 28
Page 205 of 373
City Council
June 15, 2020
Bethany Shultz
Absent: John Hamblin and Laurie Smallwood
Moved by Jan Lee, seconded by Bethany Shultz
Approve the first reading of Ordinance 2020-13.
CARRIED. 3-2
Ayes: Stan Pulliam, Jan Lee, and Bethany Shultz
Nays: Jeremy Pietzold and Carl Exner
Absent: John Hamblin and Laurie Smallwood
PowerPoint Slides - 20-010
10. Report from the City Manager
The City Manager indicated that proposed changes to the Development Code will be
brought forward soon related to average daily trip standards. Referring to another
recent Black Lives Matter protest, he expressed support for their goals and praised
the Police Department's cooperation. He stated that the values of respect, dignity,
and justice are embedded in the policies and culture of the city organization, and he
called on the community to hold the city accountable to those values.
He updated the Council on the County's COVID-19 plans as more cases continue to be
reported. City facilities will be opened to the public once protective barriers are
installed, which should happen at the end of the month. Municipal Court was held on
June 8 with safety precautions in place.
The social services master plan effort by local graduate students is proceeding. A
presentation to the Council will occur in July.
The 2020 LOC conference will be held virtually due to COVID-19, as will the OMA
conference.
11. Committee /Council Reports
Councilor Shultz: the Library Board met and discussed their annual financial reports
and documents. Libraries are now able to resume sharing materials between
facilities. She and Councilor Lee met with the Trackers organization to discuss
childcare opportunities. Councilor Shultz stated she likely will not run for reelection
this year; Councilor Pietzold and Mayor Pulliam expressed disappointment.
Councilor Exner: also expressed disappointment with Councilor Shultz' reelection
decision. He inquired about the clean up day; staff stated it has been postponed
Page 12 of 28
Page 206 of 373
City Council
June 15, 2020
indefinitely, but will confirm this with the provider. An interview with a candidate for
the Arts Commission will occur tomorrow. The Growing Together mural fundraising
effort is proceeding well. He stated appreciation for the protesters' goals. He asked
about a trail and gate that was supposed to provide access to the Hamilton Ridge
playground from the Sandyplace Apartments. Staff responded that the area would
not qualify for CDBG funding, but agreed that it was a situation worth addressing for
safety reasons.
Councilor Lee: urged Councilor Shultz to stay with the Council if possible; she values
her opinions. A Transit Board meeting is upcoming; Congressman DeFazio is
sponsoring a bill to pay for transit costs and roadway work. The County is putting
together a Climate Action Plan. Cities within the Metro boundary are eligible for
funding to create their own plans to coordinate. The City has been approved for
funding through GEOS Institute, but funds are not available yet for disbursement. The
Resiliency Committee is moving forward with the work it can undertake in the
interim.
Councilor Pietzold: thanked Councilor Lee for representing the City before the County
Commission. He and the Mayor met with a business owner in the C1 zone who
indicated that the recent parking requirement changes were a significant benefit.
Grant funds are available through the federal government for potential broadband
expansion in rural areas; he shared the information with staff. Plans are being
developed for schools in the next school year regarding COVID-19; there remains a
large degree of uncertainty. He encouraged the expansion of outdoor seating areas
for restaurants.
Mayor Pulliam: expressed his appreciation and praise for Councilor Shultz' service on
the Council. He thanked Councilor Lee for representing the City before the County
Commission, and thanked Councilor Exner for raising the park issue. He thanked
Trackers for being open to the opportunities being discussed. He expressed pride
regarding the local family and small business-friendly actions taken by the Council
that will prove to be beneficial to the community. He stated that he has received
praise from other mayors about the positive way Sandy has handled the protests and
dialogue regarding race and policing. He raised the idea of the Council holding a
listening session for community discussion of these issues, and also praised the work
of the Sandy Police Department. He raised the issue of how to communicate COVID-
19 safety in the context of the fireworks show. Staff responded that a communication
approach is being developed.
12. Staff updates
12.1. Monthly Reports
Page 13 of 28
Page 207 of 373
City Council
June 15, 2020
13. Adjourn
_______________________
Mayor, Stan Pulliam
_______________________
City Recorder, Jeff Aprati
Page 14 of 28
Page 208 of 373
Gunderson Road & Parkland
Annexation
File No. 20-001 ANN/CPA/ZC
City Council 6/15/20
Page 15 of 28Page 209 of 373
Annexation area
Page 16 of 28Page 210 of 373
6.42 acres
Page 17 of 28Page 211 of 373
Annexation Proposal
•The applicant proposes to annex 6.42 acres to meet a need for
certain public facilities (a minor arterial road, stormwater
facilities, a portion of HWY 211, and parkland).
•The applicant is not seeking to add land for additional residential,
commercial or industrial development.
•The annexation would provide an additional access to the Bailey
Meadows Subdivision and distribute traffic in the area and meet
needs for an area of planned, logical urban growth in compliance
with Criterion C of the annexation criteria.Page 18 of 28Page 212 of 373
UGB Expansion hearing timeline
•February 11, 2020 –City of Sandy Planning Commission
recommends UGB expansion
•March 2, 2020 –City of Sandy Council passed UGB expansion
ordinance
•March 9, 2020 –Clackamas County Planning Commission
recommends UGB expansion
•June 3, 2020 –Clackamas County Board of Commissioners
approves UGB expansion
–Ordinance passed by Clackamas County on June 11, 2020Page 19 of 28Page 213 of 373
Comp Plan and Zoning Modification
•Existing County comp plan designation = Agriculture (AG)
•Existing County zoning = Exclusive Farm Use (EFU)
•If annexation occurs:
–Comprehensive plan designation of Low Density
Residential and Parks and Open Space
–Zoning designation of Parks & Open Space (POS) for 2.38-
acre park and Single Family Residential (SFR) for 4.04 acres
of roads and associated facilities
Page 20 of 28Page 214 of 373
Recommendation
The Planning Commission and staff recommend
the City Council approve Ordinance No. 2020-
11. Consistent with the application and the
Planning Commission’s recommendation, the
ordinance contains a condition that limits the
future uses of the 4.04 acres zoned SFR to right-
of-way and utility uses and associated facilities
to support such uses. Page 21 of 28Page 215 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation Code
Modifications
City Council Meeting 6/15/2020
Page 22 of 28Page 216 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation -Proposal
•Clarify annexation criteria regarding public
facilities and services.
–Small annexations < 1 acre, island annexations per
ORS 222.750, and properties with annexation
agreements are exempt from being required to
demonstrate how the property will be served by
adequate public facilities and services and how
impacts will be mitigated.Page 23 of 28Page 217 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation -Proposal
•Clarify submission requirements regarding
compliance with City plans, Transportation
Planning Rule findings, and FSH mapping.
•Clarify annexation type for POS and/or FSH zone
changes.
•Increase noticing distance to 1,000 feet.Page 24 of 28Page 218 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation -
Background
•The proposed requirements to complete some
analysis prior to annexation will make the
annexation process slightly more expensive but
will give the City Council some assurances prior
to making a land use decision of this magnitude.
–Most property owners that annex typically do so in
preparation of either development or as part of a
property sale where a developer is trying to secure
their entitlements prior to the sale being completed. Page 25 of 28Page 219 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation -
Background
–Most property owners who annex will pay for the
master plan analysis through direct payments by the
developer or by a reduction in sale price.
–Either way the master plan analysis is factored into
the property value.
–In cases where a property owner does not have an
interested developer the required master plan
analysis should assist in selling the property after
annexation.Page 26 of 28Page 220 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation –
Background
–Based on the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, staff sent notice of the proposed
changes to the annexation code to all property
owners outside City limits but within the UGB.Page 27 of 28Page 221 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation –
Background
–Staff originally proposed increasing the annexation
waiting period for significant tree removal from 5
years to 10 years.
–The Planning Commission ultimately voted to keep it
at 5 years.
–Since the PC meeting, staff has received many public
comments in support of increasing the annexation
waiting period for significant tree removal to 10 or
more years. Page 28 of 28Page 222 of 373
Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 6, 2020
From Tyler Deems, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Sandy Arts Commissioner Appointment
Background:
The Sandy Arts Commission consists of seven members, each appointed by City
Council. A position on the Sandy Arts Commission became open in early 2020 after a
commissioner resigned. Staff recruited for the opening via the City's website, Facebook,
and the Sandy Post. Two applications were received, and one interview was conducted
on June 16, 2020. The interview panel consisted of Mayor Pulliam, Councilor Exner,
and Commissioner Hawley.
The panel unanimously voted to extend an offer to Dan Bosserman for the open
position. Mr. Bosserman has been involved in numerous community organizations
including the Sandy Actors Theatre, Sandy Historical Society, and Friends of the Sandy
Library. He has grant writing experience and will bring a new perspective to the
Commission with his past volunteer work and knowledge of the local community.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council appoint Dan Bosserman to the Sandy Arts Commission
for the remainder of the January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020 term.
Budgetary Impact:
None.
Page 223 of 373
Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 6, 2020
From Mike Walker, Public Works Director
SUBJECT:
Renewal of Oregon Public Works Emergency Response Cooperative
Agreement
Background:
Since 2010 the City has been party to the Oregon Public Works Emergency Response
Cooperative Agreement for sharing personnel, equipment, materials and other
resources in the event of an emergency. ODOT coordinates this program statewide and
participates in the agreement as well. Many public agencies both large and small
around the state are parties to the agreement as is ODOT. The agreement is renewed
every five years.
Participating agencies agree to provide personnel, equipment and materials members in
the event of an emergency. Agencies are not obligated to provide resources if they
cannot spare them. Agencies providing assistance are reimbursed by the benefiting
agency. The primary advantage is that resource typing, expense tracking and
reimbursement follow FEMA guidelines so that expenses associated with a emergency
response in the event of a declared disaster are uniformly tracked and these records
can be used for reimbursement from FEMA.
Recommendation:
Authorize staff to renew the Oregon Public Works Emergency Response Cooperative
Agreement.
Page 224 of 373
Page 225 of 373
Page 226 of 373
Page 227 of 373
Page 228 of 373
Page 229 of 373
Page 230 of 373
Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 6, 2020
From Emily Meharg, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: 20-010 DCA Chapter 17.78 Annexation Code Modifications
Background:
File No. 20-010 DCA amends Chapter 17.78 of the Development Code, which contains
the procedures and conditions for annexation. The amendment clarifies annexation
criteria and required submittal items and includes additional minor modifications.
Italicized text as contained in this staff report is revised text since the first reading of the
ordinance on June 15, 2020.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
• Changed annexation waiting period for significant tree removal back to staff
recommendation of 10 years.
• Added flexibility to Transportation Planning Rule criteria and submittal
requirement.
o Section 17.78.50(A.3): “The application demonstrates that the annexation
and proposed zoning is consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule
(TPR) or explains that the TPR analysis is not required.”
o Section 17.78.60(H): “Transportation Planning Rule findings, if applicable.”
• Additional language to clearly exempt additional annexation analysis for
annexations that have an annexation agreement (demonstration of public
services provision and mitigation).
o Section 17.78.50(B.3): “An annexation for which the City has executed an
annexation agreement and the agreement allows for A.1 and A.2 to be
delayed until development is proposed.”
• Added flexibility to FSH analysis submission requirement.
o Section 17.78.60(F.3): “Approximate or surveyed location of areas subject
to regulation under Chapter 17.60, Flood and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay
District, including, but not limited to, wetland boundaries, streams, top of
bank, buffers, areas of 25 percent or greater slope, restricted development
areas, and the FSH analysis area. If the applicant wants to avoid an
additional zone map modification request at time of development, then
these areas will need to be surveyed at the time of annexation application
submittal.”
• Added flexibility to submittal criteria related to adherence to City plans.
o Section 17.78.60(G.3): “Ability to adhere to adopted City plans including,
but not limited to, the Transportation System Plan, Parks and Trails
Page 231 of 373
Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Specific Area Plans; this analysis
may be deferred if the applicant enters into an annexation agreement as
provided in Section 17.78.50(B).”
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed code amendments to Chapter
17.78, Annexation. Since the proposed code has been modified the ordinance will need
to be re-approved through first reading.
Code Analysis:
EXHIBITS:
A. Clean Copy of Proposed Code Changes to Chapter 17.78
B. Track Changes Copy of Proposed Changes to Chapter 17.78
C. Parks Board Comment
D. Public Comment – Delva Von Harten
E. Public Comment – Fair Housing Council of Oregon
F. Public Comment – Georgina Sutherland
G. Public Comment – Jan Sharman
H. Public Comment – Kathleen Walker
I. Public Comment – Kathleen Walker #2
J. Public Comment – Kimberly Nomad
K. Public Comment – Lora Strick
L. Public Comment – Nancy McCowan
M. Public Comment – Nancy O’Grady
N. Public Comment – Steve Winkler
O. Public Comment – Susan Drew
P. Public Comment – Tracy Brown
Q. Planning Commission Staff Report
R. Planning Commission PowerPoint Presentation
S. City Council June 15 Staff Report
T. City Council PowerPoint Presentation
Budgetary Impact:
None
Page 232 of 373
17.78 - 1
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
CHAPTER 17.78
ANNEXATION
17.78.00 INTENT
The procedures and standards established in this chapter are required for review of proposed
annexations in order to:
A. Maximize citizen involvement in the annexation review process by holding a public hearing;
B. Ensure that public facilities are or will be available to serve land annexed to the City;
C. Establish a system for measuring the physical, environmental, fiscal and related social effects
of proposed annexations; and,
D. Where possible and practical, avoid the creation of irregular boundaries or annexations that
create “island,” “cherry stem” or “shoestring” annexations.
17.78.10 PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. The corporate limits of the City shall include all territory encompassed by its boundaries as
they now exist or are modified as provided herein unless mandated by State Law.
B. The City may annex an unincorporated area that is surrounded by the City boundary.
C. The City may annex land for public facilities. Public facilities include but are not limited to
schools, senior centers, roads, police and fire stations, parks or open space, and public water,
sewer and storm drainage facilities.
17.78.15 TYPES OF ANNEXATION
A. Type A: Annexation in conformance with conceptual zoning designation
B. Type B: Annexation + zone change, including Parks and Open Space (POS) and/or Flood
and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District
C. Type C: Annexation + plan map change + zone change
17.78.20 CONDITIONS FOR ANNEXATION
The following conditions must be met prior to beginning an annexation request:
A. The requirement of Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapters 199 and 222 for initiation of the
annexation process are met;
B. The site must be within the City of Sandy Urban Growth Boundary (UGB);
Page 233 of 373
17.78 - 2
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
C. The site must be contiguous to the city or separated from it only by a public right-of-way or a
stream, bay, lake or other body of water; and
D. The site has not violated Section 17.78.25.
17.78.25 TREE RETENTION
The intent of this section is to treat property with annexation potential (in the UGB) as if it had
been subject, prior to annexation, to the tree retention provisions of the City's Urban Forestry
Ordinance (Chapter 17.102) and Flood and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District (Chapter
17.60), to discourage property owners from removing trees prior to annexation as a way of
avoiding Urban Forestry Ordinance provisions, and to prevent unnecessary tree removal for
future subdivision layout. In accordance with ORS 527.722, the State Forester shall provide the
City with a copy of the notice or written plan when a forest operation is proposed within the
UGB. The City shall review and comment on an individual forest operation and inform the
landowner or operator of all other regulations that apply but that do not pertain to activities
regulated under the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
A. Properties shall not be considered for annexation for a minimum of ten (10) years if any of
the following apply:
1. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater diameter at breast height (DBH) have been
removed within 25 feet of the high water level along a perennial stream in the ten (10)
years prior to the annexation application.
2. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 80 feet of the high water level of Tickle
Creek in the ten (10) years prior to the annexation application.
3. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 50 feet of the high water level along other
perennial streams in the ten (10) years prior to the annexation application.
4. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater DBH have been removed on 25 percent or
greater slopes in the ten (10) years prior to the annexation application.
5. Where more than ten (10) trees (11 inches or greater DBH) per gross acre have been
removed in the ten (10) years prior to the annexation application, except as provided
below:
a. Sites under one (1) acre in area shall not remove more than five (5) trees in the ten
(10) years prior to the annexation application.
b. Sites where removal of ten (10) or fewer trees will result in the site not meeting
the minimum tree retention requirements of Chapter 17.102, Urban Forestry.
c. For properties in or adjacent to the Bornstedt Village Overlay (BVO), tree
removal must not result in fewer than six (6) healthy 11 inch DBH or greater trees
Page 234 of 373
17.78 - 3
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
per acre. For properties in or adjacent to the BVO and within 300 feet of the FSH
Overlay District, tree removal must not result in fewer than nine (9) healthy 11
inch DBH or greater trees per acre.
Rounding: Site area shall be rounded to the nearest half acre and allowed tree removal shall
be calculated accordingly. For example, a 1.5 acre site will not be allowed to remove more
than fifteen (15) trees in the ten (10) years prior to the annexation application. A calculation
of 1.2 acres is rounded down to one (1) acre and a calculation of 1.8 is rounded up to two (2)
acres.
Cumulative Calculation: Total gross acreage includes riparian areas and other sensitive
habitat. Trees removed under Sections 17.78.25(A) 2. and 3. shall count towards tree removal
under Section 17.78.25(A) 5.
B. Exceptions. The City Council may grant exceptions to this section where:
1. The property owner can demonstrate that Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, or other
appropriate native trees were planted at a ratio of at least two trees for every one tree
removed no less than ten (10) years prior to the submission of the annexation application,
and at least 50 percent of these trees have remained healthy; or
2. The Council finds that tree removal was necessary due to hazards, or right-of-way or
utility facilities or access; or
3. The trees were removed because they were dead, dying, or diseased and their condition as
such resulted from an accident or non-human cause, as determined by a certified arborist
or other qualified professional; or
4. The trees removed were nuisance trees; or
5. The trees were removed as part of a stream restoration and enhancement program
approved by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as improving riparian function;
or
6. The trees removed were orchard trees, Christmas trees, or commercial nursery trees
grown for commercial purposes; or
7. The application of this section will create an island of unincorporated area.
17.78.30 ZONING OF ANNEXED AREAS
A. All lands within the urban growth boundary of Sandy have been classified according to the
appropriate city land use designation as noted on the comprehensive plan map (as per the
city/county urban growth management area agreement). The zoning classification shall
reflect the city land use classification as illustrated in Table 17.26.20.
Page 235 of 373
17.78 - 4
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
17.78.40 EXISTING USE, ACTIVITY OR STRUCTURE
A. As of the effective date of annexation, no use or activity shall be considered non-conforming
if the use or activity: (1) violates or conflicts with county zoning regulations and (2) is not
classified as non-conforming under county zoning regulations. Any such use or activity shall
constitute a violation of this ordinance.
B. Any use, activity or structure that is existing at the effective date of annexation, under a
Clackamas County use permit with a time limit imposed, shall not be a non-conforming use,
but may continue for the extent of the time limit. Such use permits may not be extended
without City approval.
C. Any lot or parcel of land duly recorded in the Clackamas County Recorder's Office prior to
the effective date of this Ordinance and having an area, width, depth, or street frontage less
than that required in the Zoning District regulations in which such lot or parcel is situated,
shall be deemed to be a lot and may be used as a building site, provided that all other
regulations for the Zoning District shall apply.
17.78.50 ANNEXATION CRITERIA
Requests for annexation shall not have an adverse impact on the citizens of Sandy, either
financially or in relation to the livability of the city or any neighborhoods within the annexation
area.
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, an application to annex property into the
city shall meet the following criteria:
1. The application demonstrates how the property will be served by adequate public
facilities and services, including sanitary sewer, domestic water, transportation, internet
and parks. Public facilities and services must be provided in a manner consistent with the
City’s adopted public facility plans, comprehensive plan, transportation system plan,
parks and trails master plan, and any applicable area plan or master plan. The application
must demonstrate how the public facilities and services will be provided to the property
in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
2. The application demonstrates how impacts to existing City public facilities and services
(sewer, water, stormwater, and transportation) from development of the property will be
mitigated, if necessary. Mitigation may include construction of on-site or off-site
improvements or improvements to existing infrastructure to City standards and
specifications. The application must demonstrate adequate funding for the mitigation. If
the financing requires City funds, the funding must be approved by the City Council prior
to annexation. The City may rely on the standards and criteria of SMC Chapter 17.84
(Improvements Required with Development) and other relevant standards and criteria in
the comprehensive plan or development code to analyze an applicant’s proposed
mitigation of impacts. In order to ensure adequate public facilities and services will exist
to serve property annexed to the City, an applicant may be required to enter into an
agreement with the City that governs the extent and timing of infrastructure
improvements.
Page 236 of 373
17.78 - 5
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
3. The application demonstrates that the annexation and proposed zoning is consistent with
the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) or explains that the TPR analysis is not required.
4. The annexation is in the best interest of the City. Generally, the annexation is in the best
interest of the city if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
a. A needed solution for existing problems, resulting from insufficient sanitation, water
service, or other urban service related problems; or
b. Land for development to meet urban needs and that meets a logical growth pattern of
the city and encourages orderly growth; or
c. Needed routes for utility and transportation networks.
B. The standards described in paragraphs A.1 and A.2 above do not apply to:
1. An application to annex property that is smaller than one acre.
2. An “island” annexation under ORS 222.750.
3. An annexation for which the City has executed an annexation agreement and the
agreement allows for A.1 and A.2 to be delayed until development is proposed.
17.78.60 APPLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Requests for annexation shall be made on forms provided by the city for such purposes and shall
be accompanied by all of the following:
A. Written consent form to the annexation signed by the owners of all land to be annexed.
B. A legal description certified by a registered surveyor or engineer.
C. The application fee established by the city.
D. A list of property owners within one thousand (1,000) feet of the subject property and two
sets of mailing labels.
E. Vicinity map showing the area to be annexed including adjacent city territory.
F. Site Plan drawn to scale (not greater than one inch = fifty feet), indicating:
1. The location of existing structures (if any);
2. The location of streets, sewer, water, electric and other utilities, on or adjacent to the
property to be annexed;
3. Approximate or surveyed location of areas subject to regulation under Chapter 17.60,
Flood and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District, including, but not limited to, wetland
boundaries, streams, top of bank, buffers, areas of 25 percent or greater slope, restricted
development areas, and the FSH analysis area. If the applicant wants to avoid an
Page 237 of 373
17.78 - 6
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
additional zone map modification request at time of development, then these areas will
need to be surveyed at the time of annexation application submittal.
G. Narrative Statement explaining the proposal and addressing:
1. Availability, capacity and status of existing water, sewer, drainage, transportation, fire,
and park facilities;
2. Additional facilities, if any, required to meet the increased demand and any proposed
phasing of such facilities in accordance with projected demand;
3. Ability to adhere to adopted City plans including, but not limited to, the Transportation
System Plan, Parks and Trails Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Specific Area
Plans; this analysis may be deferred if the applicant enters into an annexation agreement
as provided in Section 17.78.50(B); and,
4. Method and source of financing required to provide additional facilities, if any.
H. Transportation Planning Rule findings, if applicable.
17.78.70 REVIEW PROCEDURE
Type A, B & C
1. Pre-application conference;
2. Submission of completed application;
3. Review by Planning Commission with recommendation to City Council;
4. Review by City Council;
5. Approval or denial by City Council.
17.78.80 EXCEPTIONS
Exceptions may be granted for identified health hazards and for those matters which the City
Council determines that the public interest would not be served by undertaking the entire
annexation process. The City Council may authorize an exception to any of the requirements of
this chapter. An exception shall require a statement of findings that indicates the basis for the
exception.
17.78.90 ANNEXATION CONDITIONS
A. All properties annexed are subject to inclusion within applicable advance financing districts
and urban renewal districts.
B. These conditions apply to all annexed properties regardless of transfers of the ownership of
such properties.
Page 238 of 373
17.78 - 1
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
CHAPTER 17.78
ANNEXATION
17.78.00 INTENT
The procedures and standards established in this chapter are required for review of proposed
annexations in order to:
A. Maximize citizen involvement in the annexation review process by holding a public hearing;
B. Ensure that public facilities are or will be available to serve land annexed to the City;
B.C. Establish a system for measuring the physical, environmental, fiscal and related social
effects of proposed annexations; and,
C.D. Where possible and practical, avoid the creation of irregular boundaries or annexations
that create “island,” “cherry stem” or “shoestring” annexations.
17.78.10 PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. The corporate limits of the City shall include all territory encompassed by its boundaries as
they now exist or are modified as provided herein unless mandated by State Law.
B. The City may annex an unincorporated area that is surrounded by the City boundary.The City
may annex an island if it is less than 100 acres and has at least 80 percent of its boundary
contiguous to the City; or the land is of any size and has at least 80 percent of its boundary
contiguous to the City if the area to be annexed existed as an island before October 20, 1997.
C. The City may annex land for public facilities. Public facilities include but are not limited to
schools, senior centers, roads, police and fire stations, parks or open space, and public water,
sewer and storm drainage facilities.
17.78.15 TYPES OF ANNEXATION
A. Type A: Annexation in conformance with conceptual zoning designation
A.B. Type B: Annexation + zone change, including Parks and Open Space (POS) and/or Flood
and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District
B.C. Type C: Annexation + plan map change + zone change
17.78.20 CONDITIONS FOR ANNEXATION
The following conditions must be met prior to beginning an annexation request:
A. The requirement of Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapters 199 and 222 for initiation of the
annexation process are met;
Page 239 of 373
17.78 - 2
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
B. The site must be within the City of Sandy Urban Growth Boundary (UGB);
C. The site must be contiguous to the city or separated from it only by a public right-of-way or a
stream, bay, lake or other body of water; and.
D. The site has not violated Section 17.78.25.
17.78.25 TREE RETENTION
The intent of this section is to treat property with annexation potential (in the UGB) as if it had
been subject, prior to annexation, to the tree retention provisions of the City's Urban Forestry
Ordinance (Chapter 17.102) and Flood and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District (Chapter
17.60), to discourage property owners from removing trees prior to annexation as a way of
avoiding Urban Forestry Ordinance provisions, and to prevent unnecessary tree removal for
future subdivision layout. In accordance with ORS 527.722, the State Forester shall provide the
City with a copy of the notice or written plan when a forest operation is proposed within the
UGB. The City shall review and comment on an individual forest operation and inform the
landowner or operator of all other regulations that apply but that do not pertain to activities
regulated under the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
A. Properties shall not be considered for annexation for a minimum of five ten (105) years if any
of the following apply:
1. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater diameter at breast height (DBH) have been
removed within 25 feet of the high water level along a perennial stream in the five ten
(10) years prior to the annexation application.
2. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 80 feet of the high water level of Tickle
Creek in the five ten (10) years prior to the annexation application.
3. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 50 feet of the high water level along other
perennial streams in the five ten (10) years prior to the annexation application.
4. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater DBH have been removed on 25 percent or
greater slopes in the five ten (10) years prior to the annexation application.
5. Where more than ten (10) trees (11 inches or greater DBH) per gross acre have been
removed in the five ten (10) years prior to the annexation application, except as provided
below:
a. Sites under one (1) acre in area shall not remove more than five (5) trees in the
five ten (10) years prior to the annexation application.
b. Sites where removal of ten (10) or fewer trees will result in fewer than three (3)
trees per gross acre remaining on the site. Tree removal may not result in fewer
Page 240 of 373
17.78 - 3
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
than three (3) trees per gross acre remaining on the site. At least three (3) healthy,
non-nuisance trees 11 inches DBH or greater must be retained for every one-acre
of contiguous ownershipthe site not meeting the minimum tree retention
requirements of Chapter 17.102, Urban Forestry.
c. For properties in or adjacent to the Bornstedt Village Overlay (BVO), tree
removal must not result in fewer than six (6) healthy 11 inch DBH or greater trees
per acre. For properties in or adjacent to the BVO and within 300 feet of the FSH
Overlay District, tree removal must not result in fewer than nine (9) healthy 11
inch DBH or greater trees per acre.
Rounding: Site area shall be rounded to the nearest half acre and allowed tree
removal shall be calculated accordingly. For example, a 1.5 acre site will not be
allowed to remove more than fifteen (15) trees in the five ten (10) years prior to
the annexation application. A calculation of 1.2 acres is rounded down to one (1)
acre and a calculation of 1.8 is rounded up to two (2) acres.
Cumulative Calculation: Total gross acreage includes riparian areas and other
sensitive habitat. Trees removed under Sections 17.78.25(A) 2. and 3. shall count
towards tree removal under Section 17.78.25(A) 5.
B. Exceptions. The City Council may grant exceptions to this section where:
1. The property owner can demonstrate that Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, or other
appropriate native trees were planted at a ratio of at least two trees for every one tree
removed no less than ten (10)five years prior to the submission of the annexation
application, and at least 50 percent of these trees have remained healthy; or
2. The Council finds that tree removal was necessary due to hazards, or right-of-way or
utility facilities easements or access; or
3. The trees were removed because they were dead, dying, or diseased and their condition as
such resulted from an accident or non-human cause, as determined by a certified arborist
or other qualified professional; or
4. The trees removed were nuisance trees; or
5. The trees were removed as part of a stream restoration and enhancement program
approved by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as improving riparian function;
or
6. The trees removed were orchard trees, Christmas trees, or commercial nursery trees
grown for commercial purposes; or
7. The application of this section will create an island of unincorporated area.
17.78.30 ZONING OF ANNEXED AREAS
Page 241 of 373
17.78 - 4
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
A. All lands within the urban growth boundary of Sandy have been classified according to the
appropriate city land use designation as noted on the comprehensive plan map (as per the
city/county urban growth management area agreement). The zoning classification shall
reflect the city land use classification as illustrated in Table 17.26.20.
B. Where only a single city zoning designation corresponds to the comprehensive plan
designation (Type A) and the rezoning decision does not require the exercise of legal or
policy judgment on the part of the City Council, amendment of the zoning map shall be a
ministerial decision of the Director made without notice or any opportunity for a hearing.
17.78.40 EXISTING USE, ACTIVITY OR STRUCTURE
A. As of the effective date of annexation, no use or activity shall be considered non-conforming
if the use or activity: (1) violates or conflicts with county zoning regulations and (2) is not
classified as non-conforming under county zoning regulations. Any such use or activity shall
constitute a violation of this ordinance.
B. Any use, activity or structure that is existing at the effective date of annexation, under a
Clackamas County use permit with a time limit imposed, shall not be a non-conforming use,
but may continue for the extent of the time limit. Such use permits may not be extended
without City approval.
C. Any lot or parcel of land duly recorded in the Clackamas County Recorder's Office prior to
the effective date of this Ordinance and having an area, width, depth, or street frontage less
than that required in the Zoning District regulations in which such lot or parcel is situated,
shall be deemed to be a lot and may be used as a building site, provided that all other
regulations for the Zoning District shall apply.
17.78.50 ANNEXATION CRITERIA
Requests for annexation shall not have an adverse impact on the citizens of Sandy, either
financially or in relation to the livability of the city or any neighborhoods within the annexation
area.
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, an application to annex property into the
city shall meet the following criteria:
1. The application demonstrates how the property will be served by adequate public
facilities and services, including sanitary sewer, domestic water, transportation, internet
and parks. Public facilities and services must be provided in a manner consistent with the
City’s adopted public facility plans, comprehensive plan, transportation system plan,
parks and trails master plan, and any applicable area plan or master plan. The application
must demonstrate how the public facilities and services will be provided to the property
in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
2. The application demonstrates how impacts to existing City public facilities and
services (sewer, water, stormwater, and transportation) from development of the property
will be mitigated, if necessary. Mitigation may include construction of on-site or off-site
improvements or improvements to existing infrastructure to City standards and
Page 242 of 373
17.78 - 5
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
specifications. The application must demonstrate adequate funding for the mitigation. If
the financing requires City funds, the funding must be approved by the City Council prior
to annexation. The City may rely on the standards and criteria of SMC Chapter 17.84
(Improvements Required with Development) and other relevant standards and criteria in
the comprehensive plan or development code to analyze an applicant’s proposed
mitigation of impacts. In order to ensure adequate public facilities and services will exist
to serve property annexed to the City, an applicant may be required to enter into an
agreement with the City that governs the extent and timing of infrastructure
improvements.
3. The application demonstrates that the annexation and proposed zoning is consistent with
the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) or explains that the TPR analysis is not required.
3.4.The annexation is in the best interest of the City. Generally, the annexation is in the best
interest of the city if it is desirable for the city to annex an area if the annexation meets
one or more any of the following criteria:
1. A necessary control for development form and standards of an area adjacent to the city;
or
a. A needed solution for existing problems, resulting from insufficient sanitation, water
service, or other urban service related problems; or
b. Land for development to meet urban needs and that meets a logical growth pattern of
the city and encourages orderly growth; or
c. Needed routes for utility and transportation networks.
B. The standards described in paragraphs A.1 and A.2 above do not apply to:
1. An application to annex property that is smaller than one acre.
2. An “island” annexation under ORS 222.750.
3. An annexation for which the City has executed an annexation agreement and the
agreement allows for A.1 and A.2 to be delayed until development is proposed.
17.78.60 APPLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Requests for annexation shall be made on forms provided by the city for such purposes and shall
be accompanied by all of the following:
A. Written consent form to the annexation signed by the owners of all land to be annexed.;
B. A legal description certified by a registered surveyor or engineer.;
C. The application fee established by the city.;
Page 243 of 373
17.78 - 6
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
D. A list of property owners within three one thousandhundred (31,000) feet of the subject
property on and two sets of mailing labels.;
E. Vicinity map showing the area to be annexed including adjacent city territory.;
F. Site Plan (Type A=15 copies; Type B or C = 25 copies) drawn to scale (not greater than one
inch = fifty feet), indicating:
1. The location of existing structures (if any);
2. The location of streets, sewer, water, electric and other utilities, on or adjacent to the
property to be annexed;
3. Approximate or surveyed location of areas subject to regulation under Chapter 17.60,
Flood and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District, including, but not limited to, wetland
boundaries, streams, top of bank, buffers, areas of 25 percent or greater slope, restricted
development areas, and the FSH analysis area. If the applicant wants to avoid an
additional zone map modification request at time of development, then these areas will
need to be surveyed at the time of annexation application submittal.
G. Narrative Statement explaining the proposal and addressing:
1. Availability, capacity and status of existing water, sewer, drainage, transportation, fire,
and park and school facilities;
2. Additional facilities, if any, required to meet the increased demand and any proposed
phasing of such facilities in accordance with projected demand; and,
2.3.Ability to adhere to adopted City plans including, but not limited to, the Transportation
System Plan, Parks and Trails Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Specific Area
Plans; this analysis may be deferred if the applicant enters into an annexation agreement
as provided in Section 17.78.50(B); and,
4. Method and source of financing required to provide additional facilities, if any.
H. Transportation Planning Rule findings, if applicable.
17.78.70 REVIEW PROCEDURE
Type A, B & C
1. Pre-application conference;
2. Submission of completed application;
3. Review by Planning Commission with recommendation to City Council;
4. Review by City Council.;
4.5.Approval or denial by City Council.
17.78.80 EXCEPTIONS
Exceptions may be granted for identified health hazards and for those matters which the City
Council determines that the public interest would not be served by undertaking the entire
annexation process. The City Council may authorize an exception to any of the requirements of
this chapter. An exception shall require a statement of findings that indicates the basis for the
exception.
Page 244 of 373
17.78 - 7
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
17.78.90 ANNEXATION CONDITIONS
A. All properties annexed are subject to inclusion within applicable advance financing districts
and urban renewal districts.
B. These conditions apply to all annexed properties regardless of transfers of the ownership of
such properties.
Page 245 of 373
Page 246 of 373
Page 247 of 373
Page 248 of 373
Page 249 of 373
Page 250 of 373
COMMENT SHEET for File No. 20-010 DCA:
A C o m mei/i lx
G €.orqAV\.cv O'. nci
Your Name Phone Number
^ He 0 ! I^^Op l)C' S^npi<^\/1 ^l/f> ^ yO ^—___
Address •
APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Sandy Municipal Code: 17.12 Procedures for Decision Making; 17.18 Processing
Applications; 17.22 Notices; 17.78 Annexation.
20-010 DCA Neighbor Notice for Chapter 17.78 Annexation Code Amendment
Page 3 of 3
Page 251 of 373
Page 252 of 373
Page 253 of 373
Page 254 of 373
Page 255 of 373
Page 256 of 373
Page 257 of 373
Page 258 of 373
Page 259 of 373
Page 260 of 373
Page 261 of 373
Page 262 of 373
Page 263 of 373
Staff Report
Meeting Date: May 27, 2020
From Emily Meharg, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: 20-010 DCA Chapter 17.78 Annexation Code Amendments
Background:
File No. 20-010 DCA amends Chapter 17.78 of the Development Code, which contains
the procedures and conditions for annexation. The amendment clarifies annexation
criteria and required submittal items and includes additional minor modifications. The
Commission’s role in this process is to review the proposed code amendments and
forward a recommendation to the City Council.
Summary
The current Annexation code does not make it clear that properties requesting
annexation will need to demonstrate that they can and will develop in a manner
consistent with adopted City of Sandy plans such as the Comprehensive Plan,
Transportation System Plan, Parks and Trails Master Plan, public facility plans, and
other applicable area and master plans. The proposed amendments more clearly
identify annexation criteria and required submittal items. The amendments have been
reviewed by legal counsel. In addition, the amendments increase the annexation waiting
period for a property from a minimum of 5 years to a minimum of 10 years in the event
of significant tree removal.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing to take testimony
regarding modifications to Chapter 17.78 and forward a recommendation of approval to
the City Council.
Code Analysis:
See attached:
• Draft code changes
• Comments from Parks and Trails Advisory Board
Budgetary Impact:
None
Page 264 of 373
17.78 - 1
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
CHAPTER 17.78
ANNEXATION
17.78.00 INTENT
The procedures and standards established in this chapter are required for review of proposed
annexations in order to:
A. Maximize citizen involvement in the annexation review process by holding a public hearing;
B. Ensure that public facilities are or will be available to serve land annexed to the City;
B.C. Establish a system for measuring the physical, environmental, fiscal and related social
effects of proposed annexations; and,
C.D. Where possible and practical, avoid the creation of irregular boundaries or annexations
that create “island,” “cherry stem” or “shoestring” annexations.
17.78.10 PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. The corporate limits of the City shall include all territory encompassed by its boundaries as
they now exist or are modified as provided herein unless mandated by State Law.
B. The City may annex an unincorporated area that is surrounded by the City boundary.The City
may annex an island if it is less than 100 acres and has at least 80 percent of its boundary
contiguous to the City; or the land is of any size and has at least 80 percent of its boundary
contiguous to the City if the area to be annexed existed as an island before October 20, 1997.
C. The City may annex land for public facilities. Public facilities include but are not limited to
schools, senior centers, roads, police and fire stations, parks or open space, and public water,
sewer and storm drainage facilities.
17.78.15 TYPES OF ANNEXATION
A. Type A: Annexation in conformance with conceptual zoning designation
A.B. Type B: Annexation + zone change, including Parks and Open Space (POS) and/or Flood
and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District
B.C. Type C: Annexation + plan map change + zone change
17.78.20 CONDITIONS FOR ANNEXATION
The following conditions must be met prior to beginning an annexation request:
A. The requirement of Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapters 199 and 222 for initiation of the
annexation process are met;
Page 265 of 373
17.78 - 2
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
B. The site must be within the City of Sandy Urban Growth Boundary (UGB);
C. The site must be contiguous to the city or separated from it only by a public right-of-way or a
stream, bay, lake or other body of water; and.
D. The site has not violated Section 17.78.25.
17.78.25 TREE RETENTION
The intent of this section is to treat property with annexation potential (in the UGB) as if it had
been subject, prior to annexation, to the tree retention provisions of the City's Urban Forestry
Ordinance (Chapter 17.102) and Flood and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District (Chapter
17.60), to discourage property owners from removing trees prior to annexation as a way of
avoiding Urban Forestry Ordinance provisions, and to prevent unnecessary tree removal for
future subdivision layout. In accordance with ORS 527.722, the State Forester shall provide the
City with a copy of the notice or written plan when a forest operation is proposed within the
UGB. The City shall review and comment on an individual forest operation and inform the
landowner or operator of all other regulations that apply but that do not pertain to activities
regulated under the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
A. Properties shall not be considered for annexation for a minimum of five ten (105) years if any
of the following apply:
1. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater diameter at breast height (DBH) have been
removed within 25 feet of the high water level along a perennial stream in the five ten
years prior to the annexation application.
2. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 80 feet of the high water level of Tickle
Creek in the five ten years prior to the annexation application.
3. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 50 feet of the high water level along other
perennial streams in the five ten years prior to the annexation application.
4. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater DBH have been removed on 25 percent or
greater slopes in the five ten years prior to the annexation application.
5. Where more than ten (10) trees (11 inches or greater DBH) per gross acre have been
removed in the five ten years prior to the annexation application, except as provided
below:
a. Sites under one (1) acre in area shall not remove more than five (5) trees in the
five ten years prior to the annexation application.
b. Sites where removal of ten (10) or fewer trees will result in fewer than three (3)
trees per gross acre remaining on the site. Tree removal may not result in fewer
Page 266 of 373
17.78 - 3
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
than three (3) trees per gross acre remaining on the site. At least three (3) healthy,
non-nuisance trees 11 inches DBH or greater must be retained for every one-acre
of contiguous ownershipthe site not meeting the minimum tree retention
requirements of Chapter 17.102, Urban Forestry.
c. For properties in or adjacent to the Bornstedt Village Overlay (BVO), tree
removal must not result in fewer than six (6) healthy 11 inch DBH or greater trees
per acre. For properties in or adjacent to the BVO and within 300 feet of the FSH
Overlay District, tree removal must not result in fewer than nine (9) healthy 11
inch DBH or greater trees per acre.
Rounding: Site area shall be rounded to the nearest half acre and allowed tree
removal shall be calculated accordingly. For example, a 1.5 acre site will not be
allowed to remove more than fifteen (15) trees in the five ten years prior to the
annexation application. A calculation of 1.2 acres is rounded down to one (1) acre
and a calculation of 1.8 is rounded up to two (2) acres.
Cumulative Calculation: Total gross acreage includes riparian areas and other
sensitive habitat. Trees removed under Sections 17.78.25(A) 2. and 3. shall count
towards tree removal under Section 17.78.25(A) 5.
B. Exceptions. The City Council may grant exceptions to this section where:
1. The property owner can demonstrate that Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, or other
appropriate native trees were planted at a ratio of at least two trees for every one tree
removed no less than five ten years prior to the submission of the annexation application,
and at least 50 percent of these trees have remained healthy; or
2. The Council finds that tree removal was necessary due to hazards, or right-of-way or
utility facilities easements or access; or
3. The trees were removed because they were dead, dying, or diseased and their condition as
such resulted from an accident or non-human cause, as determined by a certified arborist
or other qualified professional; or
4. The trees removed were nuisance trees; or
5. The trees were removed as part of a stream restoration and enhancement program
approved by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as improving riparian function;
or
6. The trees removed were orchard trees, Christmas trees, or commercial nursery trees
grown for commercial purposes; or
7. The application of this section will create an island of unincorporated area.
17.78.30 ZONING OF ANNEXED AREAS
Page 267 of 373
17.78 - 4
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
A. All lands within the urban growth boundary of Sandy have been classified according to the
appropriate city land use designation as noted on the comprehensive plan map (as per the
city/county urban growth management area agreement). The zoning classification shall
reflect the city land use classification as illustrated in Table 17.26.20.
B. Where only a single city zoning designation corresponds to the comprehensive plan
designation (Type A) and the rezoning decision does not require the exercise of legal or
policy judgment on the part of the City Council, amendment of the zoning map shall be a
ministerial decision of the Director made without notice or any opportunity for a hearing.
17.78.40 EXISTING USE, ACTIVITY OR STRUCTURE
A. As of the effective date of annexation, no use or activity shall be considered non-conforming
if the use or activity: (1) violates or conflicts with county zoning regulations and (2) is not
classified as non-conforming under county zoning regulations. Any such use or activity shall
constitute a violation of this ordinance.
B. Any use, activity or structure that is existing at the effective date of annexation, under a
Clackamas County use permit with a time limit imposed, shall not be a non-conforming use,
but may continue for the extent of the time limit. Such use permits may not be extended
without City approval.
C. Any lot or parcel of land duly recorded in the Clackamas County Recorder's Office prior to
the effective date of this Ordinance and having an area, width, depth, or street frontage less
than that required in the Zoning District regulations in which such lot or parcel is situated,
shall be deemed to be a lot and may be used as a building site, provided that all other
regulations for the Zoning District shall apply.
17.78.50 ANNEXATION CRITERIA
Requests for annexation shall not have an adverse impact on the citizens of Sandy, either
financially or in relation to the livability of the city or any neighborhoods within the annexation
area. To demonstrate this, annexation requests An application to annex property into the city
shall meet the following criteria:
A. The annexation shall not have an adverse impact on the citizens of Sandy, either financially
or in relation to the livability of the city or any neighborhoods within the annexation area.
A.B. The application demonstrates how the property will be served by adequate public
facilities and services, including sanitary sewer, domestic water, transportation, internet and
parks., Public facilities and services must be provided in a manner consistent with the City’s
adopted public facility plans, comprehensive plan, transportation system plan, parks and
trails master plan, and any applicable area plan or master plan. The application must
demonstrate how the public facilities and services will be provided to the property in an
orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
C. The application demonstrates how impacts to existing City public facilities and services
(sewer, water, stormwater, and transportation) from development of the property will be
Page 268 of 373
17.78 - 5
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
mitigated. Mitigation may include construction of on-site or off-site improvements or
improvements to existing infrastructure to City standards and specifications. The application
must demonstrate adequate funding for the mitigation. If the financing requires City funds,
the funding must be approved by the City Council prior to annexation. The City may rely on
the standards and criteria of SMC Chapter 17.84 (Improvements Required with
Development) and other relevant standards and criteria in the comprehensive plan or
development code to analyze an applicant’s proposed mitigation of impacts. In order to
ensure adequate public facilities and services will exist to serve property annexed to the City,
an applicant may be required to enter into an agreement with the City that governs the extent
and timing of infrastructure improvements.
D. The application demonstrates that the annexation and proposed zoning is consistent with the
Transportation Planning Rule.
D.E. The annexation is in the best interest of the City. Generally, the annexation is in the best
interest of the city if it is desirable for the city to annex an area if the annexation meets one or
more any of the following criteria:
1. A necessary control for development form and standards of an area adjacent to the city;
or
2.1.A needed solution for existing problems, resulting from insufficient sanitation, water
service, or other urban service related problems; or
3.2.Land for development to meet urban needs and that meets a logical growth pattern of the
city and encourages orderly growth; or
4.3.Needed routes for utility and transportation networks.
17.78.60 APPLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Requests for annexation shall be made on forms provided by the city for such purposes and shall
be accompanied by all of the following:
A. Written consent form to the annexation signed by the owners of all land to be annexed.;
B. A legal description certified by a registered surveyor or engineer.;
C. The application fee established by the city.;
D. A list of property owners within three one thousandhundred (31,000) feet of the subject
property on and two sets of mailing labels.;
E. Vicinity map showing the area to be annexed including adjacent city territory.;
F. Site Plan (Type A=15 copies; Type B or C = 25 copies) drawn to scale (not greater than one
inch = fifty feet), indicating:
1. The location of existing structures (if any);
Page 269 of 373
17.78 - 6
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
2. The location of streets, sewer, water, electric and other utilities, on or adjacent to the
property to be annexed;
3. Approximate Surveyed location of areas subject to regulation under Chapter 17.60, Flood
and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District, including, but not limited to, wetland
boundaries, streams, top of bank, buffers, areas of 25 percent or greater slope, restricted
development areas, and the FSH analysis area.
G. Narrative Statement explaining the proposal and addressing:
1. Availability, capacity and status of existing water, sewer, drainage, transportation, fire,
and park and school facilities;
2. Additional facilities, if any, required to meet the increased demand and any proposed
phasing of such facilities in accordance with projected demand; and,
2.3.Ability to adhere to adopted City plans including, but not limited to, the Transportation
System Plan, Parks and Trails Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Specific Area
Plans; and,
4. Method and source of financing required to provide additional facilities, if any.
H. Transportation Planning Rule findings.
17.78.70 REVIEW PROCEDURE
Type A, B & C
1. Pre-application conference;
2. Submission of completed application;
3. Review by Planning Commission with recommendation to City Council;
4. Review by City Council.;
4.5.Approval or Denial by City Council.
17.78.80 EXCEPTIONS
Exceptions may be granted for identified health hazards and for those matters which the City
Council determines that the public interest would not be served by undertaking the entire
annexation process. The City Council may authorize an exception to any of the requirements of
this chapter. An exception shall require a statement of findings that indicates the basis for the
exception.
17.78.90 ANNEXATION CONDITIONS
A. All properties annexed are subject to inclusion within applicable advance financing districts
and urban renewal districts.
B. These conditions apply to all annexed properties regardless of transfers of the ownership of
such properties.
Page 270 of 373
Page 271 of 373
Page 272 of 373
Page 273 of 373
Page 274 of 373
Date: May 27, 2020
To: Sandy Planning Commission
From: Tracy Brown
Subject: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 17.78, Annexation
I am writing to express my concern with the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.78,
Annexation. The City of Sandy has historically had a straight forward and friendly
approach to annexing property. The current code allows a property owner to request
annexation of their property if the property meets basic criteria, is located within the
urban growth boundary, and is contiguous to the city limits.
The proposed amendments represent a significant departure from this approach and if
adopted this code is likely to effectively shut down the majority of future annexation
requests. In the least, the proposed code will add significant time and expense to the
annexation process for the average property owner.
The staff report included with this item provides little analysis to explain the reasons
for these changes or does it evaluate the pros and cons of the revisions. In addition,
there is no discussion regarding the significant cost burden that these changes will be
add to the average annexation application.
Specific Comments
1. Section 17.78.00, Intent is proposed to be amended to add a new subsection B that
reads,
B. Ensure that public facilities are or will be available to serve land annexed to
the City
Annexation of property is not a request to develop the property but rather a
request to change the property’s jurisdictional authority, allow residents residing
within the annexation area to vote in city elections and pay city taxes. Simply by
the fact that a property is located within the city’s Urban Growth Boundary a
certain level of analysis had already been done to ensure future development
potential. Annexation is not the time to require additional analysis to this degree.
2. Section 17.78.25, Tree Retention is proposed to be amended to require a ten year
cooling off period rather than five years in the current code before a property
owner could request annexation after tree removal. This seems to be subjective
and an excessive amount of time. I urge the Commission to reject this change. In
addition I also suggest the Commission consider reviewing all existing language in
this section as it is already very restrictive.
3. The most troubling and costly amendments are proposed to Section 17.78.50,
Annexation Criteria. Subsection 17.78.50(B) as proposed would require all
annexation applicant’s to demonstrate how the property will be served by sanitary
sewer, domestic water, transportation, internet service, and parks. An applicant
would also need to demonstrate how the property will be provided with public
Tracy Brown Annexation Code Comments Page of 1 2
Page 275 of 373
facilities and services in an “orderly, efficient, and timely manner”. I submit to
you that this is an almost impossible criteria to achieve without hiring a team of
consultants to design a complete project and get city approval prior to
annexation. The requirements in this section are unrealistic and will be extremely
burdensome for most applicant’s. The items in this section are appropriate as part
of a development application, not an annexation application. I urge you to reject
this change.
4. Section 17.78.50 (C) is even more problematic. This section requires an applicant
to demonstrate how impacts to the sewer, water, stormwater and transportation
system from development of the property will be mitigated. It also requires an
applicant to demonstrate there is adequate funding for the mitigation. The
requirements of this criteria are impossible to know until after approval of a
subdivision application or other development request. The majority of annexation
applicant’s are not aware of what can be done with their property other than they
want to bring it into the city. The requirements in this criteria are also very
confusing, burdensome, and unnecessary at this stage. If the items in this criteria
are a concern I suggest the Planning Commission consider amending subdivision
criteria instead. I urge you to reject this change.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.78, Annexations
represent a significant departure from the city’s current annexation approach. The
additional requirements contained in these revisions are likely to add significant time
and expense to annexation applications and may effectively shut down future
annexation requests. If it is the Commission’s intent to stop properties from
annexing, then these changes should be adopted. If on the other hand you are
interested in continuing to bring properties located in the urban growth boundary into
the city limits as they were intended, than I urge you to reject these changes. I am
unclear what the intent of these revisions really are other than possibly an
overreaction caused by a recent controversial subdivision application.
I urge you to push the pause button on these changes and to either recommend the
Council reject these amendment or to make significant changes to this language prior
to forwarding to the Council.
Tracy Brown Annexation Code Comments Page of 2 2
Page 276 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation Code
Modifications
PC Meeting 5/27/2020
Page 277 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation -Proposal
•Clarify annexation criteria regarding public
facilities and services.
•Clarify submission requirements regarding
compliance with City plans, Transportation
Planning Rule findings, and FSH mapping.
•Clarify annexation type for POS and/or FSH
zone changes.
•Increase noticing distance to 1,000 feet.
•Increase annexation waiting period to 10 years
for properties with significant tree removal.Page 278 of 373
Staff Report
Meeting Date: June 15, 2020
From Emily Meharg, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: 20-010 DCA
Background:
File No. 20-010 DCA amends Chapter 17.78 of the Development Code, which contains
the procedures and conditions for annexation. The amendment clarifies annexation
criteria and required submittal items and includes additional minor modifications.
I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The current Annexation code does not make it clear that properties requesting
annexation will need to demonstrate that they can and will develop in a manner
consistent with adopted City of Sandy plans such as the Comprehensive Plan,
Transportation System Plan, Parks and Trails Master Plan, public facility plans, and
other applicable area and master plans. The proposed annexation code amendments
more clearly identify annexation criteria and required submittal items. Annexations have
both a land use element and political considerations; thus, changes to the annexation
code provide an appropriate opportunity to avoid issues with future development, such
as occurred with Bailey Meadows. The amendments have been reviewed by legal
counsel to be consistent with annexation requirements in Oregon statutes.
II. BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Since the adoption of Senate Bill 1573 in March of 2016 the City of Sandy has had little
ability to require analysis to prove annexation will not negatively affect Sandy and its
residents. While the proposed code modifications will have some implications on
annexations it will minimize negative impacts on existing and future residents. The
proposed requirements to complete some analysis prior to annexation will make the
annexation process slightly more expensive but will give the City Council some
assurances prior to making a land use decision of this magnitude.
Rest assured that for small annexations under 1 acre the burden of proof for annexation
will be reduced. Also, if properties need to annex to connect to city services for
something like a failing septic tank or failing drain field this can be accomplished
through an annexation agreement with the analysis being deferred prior to development
of the property.
Most property owners that decide to annex typically do so in preparation of either
development (i.e. subdividing the property, commercial development, etc.) or as part of
Page 279 of 373
a property sale where a developer is trying to secure their entitlements prior to the sale
being completed. This means that most property owners who annex property will pay for
the master plan analysis through direct payments by the developer or by a reduction in
sale price. Either way the master plan analysis is factored into the property value. In
cases where a property owner does not have an interested developer the required
master plan analysis should assist in selling the property after annexation.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed code amendments to Chapter
17.78, Annexation.
Code Analysis:
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Chapter 17.78 Code Modifications
B: Clean Copy of Proposed Code Changes
C: Parks Board Comment
D: Public Comment – Kathleen Walker
E: Public Comment – Tracy Brown
F: Public Comment – Fair Housing Council of Oregon
G: PC staff report
H: PC PPT presentation
Budgetary Impact:
None
Page 280 of 373
17.78 - 1
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
CHAPTER 17.78
ANNEXATION
17.78.00 INTENT
The procedures and standards established in this chapter are required for review of proposed
annexations in order to:
A. Maximize citizen involvement in the annexation review process by holding a public hearing;
B. Ensure that public facilities are or will be available to serve land annexed to the City;
B.C. Establish a system for measuring the physical, environmental, fiscal and related social
effects of proposed annexations; and,
C.D. Where possible and practical, avoid the creation of irregular boundaries or annexations
that create “island,” “cherry stem” or “shoestring” annexations.
17.78.10 PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. The corporate limits of the City shall include all territory encompassed by its boundaries as
they now exist or are modified as provided herein unless mandated by State Law.
B. The City may annex an unincorporated area that is surrounded by the City boundary.The City
may annex an island if it is less than 100 acres and has at least 80 percent of its boundary
contiguous to the City; or the land is of any size and has at least 80 percent of its boundary
contiguous to the City if the area to be annexed existed as an island before October 20, 1997.
C. The City may annex land for public facilities. Public facilities include but are not limited to
schools, senior centers, roads, police and fire stations, parks or open space, and public water,
sewer and storm drainage facilities.
17.78.15 TYPES OF ANNEXATION
A. Type A: Annexation in conformance with conceptual zoning designation
A.B. Type B: Annexation + zone change, including Parks and Open Space (POS) and/or Flood
and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District
B.C. Type C: Annexation + plan map change + zone change
17.78.20 CONDITIONS FOR ANNEXATION
The following conditions must be met prior to beginning an annexation request:
A. The requirement of Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapters 199 and 222 for initiation of the
annexation process are met;
Page 281 of 373
17.78 - 2
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
B. The site must be within the City of Sandy Urban Growth Boundary (UGB);
C. The site must be contiguous to the city or separated from it only by a public right-of-way or a
stream, bay, lake or other body of water; and.
D. The site has not violated Section 17.78.25.
17.78.25 TREE RETENTION
The intent of this section is to treat property with annexation potential (in the UGB) as if it had
been subject, prior to annexation, to the tree retention provisions of the City's Urban Forestry
Ordinance (Chapter 17.102) and Flood and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District (Chapter
17.60), to discourage property owners from removing trees prior to annexation as a way of
avoiding Urban Forestry Ordinance provisions, and to prevent unnecessary tree removal for
future subdivision layout. In accordance with ORS 527.722, the State Forester shall provide the
City with a copy of the notice or written plan when a forest operation is proposed within the
UGB. The City shall review and comment on an individual forest operation and inform the
landowner or operator of all other regulations that apply but that do not pertain to activities
regulated under the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
A. Properties shall not be considered for annexation for a minimum of five (5) years if any of
the following apply:
1. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater diameter at breast height (DBH) have been
removed within 25 feet of the high water level along a perennial stream in the five years
prior to the annexation application.
2. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 80 feet of the high water level of Tickle
Creek in the five years prior to the annexation application.
3. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 50 feet of the high water level along other
perennial streams in the five years prior to the annexation application.
4. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater DBH have been removed on 25 percent or
greater slopes in the five years prior to the annexation application.
5. Where more than ten (10) trees (11 inches or greater DBH) per gross acre have been
removed in the five years prior to the annexation application, except as provided below:
a. Sites under one (1) acre in area shall not remove more than five (5) trees in the
five years prior to the annexation application.
b. Sites where removal of ten (10) or fewer trees will result in fewer than three (3)
trees per gross acre remaining on the site. Tree removal may not result in fewer
than three (3) trees per gross acre remaining on the site. At least three (3) healthy,
Page 282 of 373
17.78 - 3
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
non-nuisance trees 11 inches DBH or greater must be retained for every one-acre
of contiguous ownershipthe site not meeting the minimum tree retention
requirements of Chapter 17.102, Urban Forestry.
c. For properties in or adjacent to the Bornstedt Village Overlay (BVO), tree
removal must not result in fewer than six (6) healthy 11 inch DBH or greater trees
per acre. For properties in or adjacent to the BVO and within 300 feet of the FSH
Overlay District, tree removal must not result in fewer than nine (9) healthy 11
inch DBH or greater trees per acre.
Rounding: Site area shall be rounded to the nearest half acre and allowed tree
removal shall be calculated accordingly. For example, a 1.5 acre site will not be
allowed to remove more than fifteen (15) trees in the five years prior to the
annexation application. A calculation of 1.2 acres is rounded down to one (1) acre
and a calculation of 1.8 is rounded up to two (2) acres.
Cumulative Calculation: Total gross acreage includes riparian areas and other
sensitive habitat. Trees removed under Sections 17.78.25(A) 2. and 3. shall count
towards tree removal under Section 17.78.25(A) 5.
B. Exceptions. The City Council may grant exceptions to this section where:
1. The property owner can demonstrate that Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, or other
appropriate native trees were planted at a ratio of at least two trees for every one tree
removed no less than five years prior to the submission of the annexation application, and
at least 50 percent of these trees have remained healthy; or
2. The Council finds that tree removal was necessary due to hazards, or right-of-way or
utility facilities easements or access; or
3. The trees were removed because they were dead, dying, or diseased and their condition as
such resulted from an accident or non-human cause, as determined by a certified arborist
or other qualified professional; or
4. The trees removed were nuisance trees; or
5. The trees were removed as part of a stream restoration and enhancement program
approved by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as improving riparian function;
or
6. The trees removed were orchard trees, Christmas trees, or commercial nursery trees
grown for commercial purposes; or
7. The application of this section will create an island of unincorporated area.
17.78.30 ZONING OF ANNEXED AREAS
Page 283 of 373
17.78 - 4
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
A. All lands within the urban growth boundary of Sandy have been classified according to the
appropriate city land use designation as noted on the comprehensive plan map (as per the
city/county urban growth management area agreement). The zoning classification shall
reflect the city land use classification as illustrated in Table 17.26.20.
B. Where only a single city zoning designation corresponds to the comprehensive plan
designation (Type A) and the rezoning decision does not require the exercise of legal or
policy judgment on the part of the City Council, amendment of the zoning map shall be a
ministerial decision of the Director made without notice or any opportunity for a hearing.
17.78.40 EXISTING USE, ACTIVITY OR STRUCTURE
A. As of the effective date of annexation, no use or activity shall be considered non-conforming
if the use or activity: (1) violates or conflicts with county zoning regulations and (2) is not
classified as non-conforming under county zoning regulations. Any such use or activity shall
constitute a violation of this ordinance.
B. Any use, activity or structure that is existing at the effective date of annexation, under a
Clackamas County use permit with a time limit imposed, shall not be a non-conforming use,
but may continue for the extent of the time limit. Such use permits may not be extended
without City approval.
C. Any lot or parcel of land duly recorded in the Clackamas County Recorder's Office prior to
the effective date of this Ordinance and having an area, width, depth, or street frontage less
than that required in the Zoning District regulations in which such lot or parcel is situated,
shall be deemed to be a lot and may be used as a building site, provided that all other
regulations for the Zoning District shall apply.
17.78.50 ANNEXATION CRITERIA
Requests for annexation shall not have an adverse impact on the citizens of Sandy, either
financially or in relation to the livability of the city or any neighborhoods within the annexation
area.
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, an application to annex property into the
city shall meet the following criteria:
1. The application demonstrates how the property will be served by adequate public
facilities and services, including sanitary sewer, domestic water, transportation, internet
and parks. Public facilities and services must be provided in a manner consistent with the
City’s adopted public facility plans, comprehensive plan, transportation system plan,
parks and trails master plan, and any applicable area plan or master plan. The application
must demonstrate how the public facilities and services will be provided to the property
in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
2. The application demonstrates how impacts to existing City public facilities and
services (sewer, water, stormwater, and transportation) from development of the property
will be mitigated, if necessary. Mitigation may include construction of on-site or off-site
improvements or improvements to existing infrastructure to City standards and
Page 284 of 373
17.78 - 5
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
specifications. The application must demonstrate adequate funding for the mitigation. If
the financing requires City funds, the funding must be approved by the City Council prior
to annexation. The City may rely on the standards and criteria of SMC Chapter 17.84
(Improvements Required with Development) and other relevant standards and criteria in
the comprehensive plan or development code to analyze an applicant’s proposed
mitigation of impacts. In order to ensure adequate public facilities and services will exist
to serve property annexed to the City, an applicant may be required to enter into an
agreement with the City that governs the extent and timing of infrastructure
improvements.
3. The application demonstrates that the annexation and proposed zoning is consistent with
the Transportation Planning Rule.
3.4.The annexation is in the best interest of the City. Generally, the annexation is in the best
interest of the city if it is desirable for the city to annex an area if the annexation meets
one or more any of the following criteria:
1. A necessary control for development form and standards of an area adjacent to the city;
or
a. A needed solution for existing problems, resulting from insufficient sanitation, water
service, or other urban service related problems; or
b. Land for development to meet urban needs and that meets a logical growth pattern of
the city and encourages orderly growth; or
c. Needed routes for utility and transportation networks.
B. The standards described in paragraphs A.1 and A.2 above do not apply to:
1. An application to annex property that is smaller than one acre.
2. An “island” annexation under ORS 222.750
3. An annexation for which the City has executed an annexation agreement.
17.78.60 APPLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Requests for annexation shall be made on forms provided by the city for such purposes and shall
be accompanied by all of the following:
A. Written consent form to the annexation signed by the owners of all land to be annexed.;
B. A legal description certified by a registered surveyor or engineer.;
C. The application fee established by the city.;
Page 285 of 373
17.78 - 6
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
D. A list of property owners within three one thousandhundred (31,000) feet of the subject
property on and two sets of mailing labels.;
E. Vicinity map showing the area to be annexed including adjacent city territory.;
F. Site Plan (Type A=15 copies; Type B or C = 25 copies) drawn to scale (not greater than one
inch = fifty feet), indicating:
1. The location of existing structures (if any);
2. The location of streets, sewer, water, electric and other utilities, on or adjacent to the
property to be annexed;
3. Approximate Surveyed location of areas subject to regulation under Chapter 17.60, Flood
and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District, including, but not limited to, wetland
boundaries, streams, top of bank, buffers, areas of 25 percent or greater slope, restricted
development areas, and the FSH analysis area.
G. Narrative Statement explaining the proposal and addressing:
1. Availability, capacity and status of existing water, sewer, drainage, transportation, fire,
and park and school facilities;
2. Additional facilities, if any, required to meet the increased demand and any proposed
phasing of such facilities in accordance with projected demand; and,
2.3.Ability to adhere to adopted City plans including, but not limited to, the Transportation
System Plan, Parks and Trails Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Specific Area
Plans; and,
4. Method and source of financing required to provide additional facilities, if any.
H. Transportation Planning Rule findings.
17.78.70 REVIEW PROCEDURE
Type A, B & C
1. Pre-application conference;
2. Submission of completed application;
3. Review by Planning Commission with recommendation to City Council;
4. Review by City Council.;
4.5.Approval or Denial by City Council.
17.78.80 EXCEPTIONS
Exceptions may be granted for identified health hazards and for those matters which the City
Council determines that the public interest would not be served by undertaking the entire
annexation process. The City Council may authorize an exception to any of the requirements of
this chapter. An exception shall require a statement of findings that indicates the basis for the
exception.
17.78.90 ANNEXATION CONDITIONS
Page 286 of 373
17.78 - 7
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
A. All properties annexed are subject to inclusion within applicable advance financing districts
and urban renewal districts.
B. These conditions apply to all annexed properties regardless of transfers of the ownership of
such properties.
Page 287 of 373
17.78 - 1
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
CHAPTER 17.78
ANNEXATION
17.78.00 INTENT
The procedures and standards established in this chapter are required for review of proposed
annexations in order to:
A. Maximize citizen involvement in the annexation review process by holding a public hearing;
B. Ensure that public facilities are or will be available to serve land annexed to the City;
C. Establish a system for measuring the physical, environmental, fiscal and related social effects
of proposed annexations; and,
D. Where possible and practical, avoid the creation of irregular boundaries or annexations that
create “island,” “cherry stem” or “shoestring” annexations.
17.78.10 PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. The corporate limits of the City shall include all territory encompassed by its boundaries as
they now exist or are modified as provided herein unless mandated by State Law.
B. The City may annex an unincorporated area that is surrounded by the City boundary.
C. The City may annex land for public facilities. Public facilities include but are not limited to
schools, senior centers, roads, police and fire stations, parks or open space, and public water,
sewer and storm drainage facilities.
17.78.15 TYPES OF ANNEXATION
A. Type A: Annexation in conformance with conceptual zoning designation
B. Type B: Annexation + zone change, including Parks and Open Space (POS) and/or Flood
and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District
C. Type C: Annexation + plan map change + zone change
17.78.20 CONDITIONS FOR ANNEXATION
The following conditions must be met prior to beginning an annexation request:
A. The requirement of Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapters 199 and 222 for initiation of the
annexation process are met;
B. The site must be within the City of Sandy Urban Growth Boundary (UGB);
Page 288 of 373
17.78 - 2
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
C. The site must be contiguous to the city or separated from it only by a public right-of-way or a
stream, bay, lake or other body of water; and
D. The site has not violated Section 17.78.25.
17.78.25 TREE RETENTION
The intent of this section is to treat property with annexation potential (in the UGB) as if it had
been subject, prior to annexation, to the tree retention provisions of the City's Urban Forestry
Ordinance (Chapter 17.102) and Flood and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District (Chapter
17.60), to discourage property owners from removing trees prior to annexation as a way of
avoiding Urban Forestry Ordinance provisions, and to prevent unnecessary tree removal for
future subdivision layout. In accordance with ORS 527.722, the State Forester shall provide the
City with a copy of the notice or written plan when a forest operation is proposed within the
UGB. The City shall review and comment on an individual forest operation and inform the
landowner or operator of all other regulations that apply but that do not pertain to activities
regulated under the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
A. Properties shall not be considered for annexation for a minimum of five (5) years if any of
the following apply:
1. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater diameter at breast height (DBH) have been
removed within 25 feet of the high water level along a perennial stream in the five years
prior to the annexation application.
2. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 80 feet of the high water level of Tickle
Creek in the five years prior to the annexation application.
3. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 50 feet of the high water level along other
perennial streams in the five years prior to the annexation application.
4. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater DBH have been removed on 25 percent or
greater slopes in the five years prior to the annexation application.
5. Where more than ten (10) trees (11 inches or greater DBH) per gross acre have been
removed in the five years prior to the annexation application, except as provided below:
a. Sites under one (1) acre in area shall not remove more than five (5) trees in the
five years prior to the annexation application.
b. Sites where removal of ten (10) or fewer trees will result in the site not meeting
the minimum tree retention requirements of Chapter 17.102, Urban Forestry.
c. For properties in or adjacent to the Bornstedt Village Overlay (BVO), tree
removal must not result in fewer than six (6) healthy 11 inch DBH or greater trees
per acre. For properties in or adjacent to the BVO and within 300 feet of the FSH
Page 289 of 373
17.78 - 3
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
Overlay District, tree removal must not result in fewer than nine (9) healthy 11
inch DBH or greater trees per acre.
Rounding: Site area shall be rounded to the nearest half acre and allowed tree
removal shall be calculated accordingly. For example, a 1.5 acre site will not be
allowed to remove more than fifteen (15) trees in the five years prior to the
annexation application. A calculation of 1.2 acres is rounded down to one (1) acre
and a calculation of 1.8 is rounded up to two (2) acres.
Cumulative Calculation: Total gross acreage includes riparian areas and other
sensitive habitat. Trees removed under Sections 17.78.25(A) 2. and 3. shall count
towards tree removal under Section 17.78.25(A) 5.
B. Exceptions. The City Council may grant exceptions to this section where:
1. The property owner can demonstrate that Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, or other
appropriate native trees were planted at a ratio of at least two trees for every one tree
removed no less than five years prior to the submission of the annexation application, and
at least 50 percent of these trees have remained healthy; or
2. The Council finds that tree removal was necessary due to hazards, or right-of-way or
utility facilities or access; or
3. The trees were removed because they were dead, dying, or diseased and their condition as
such resulted from an accident or non-human cause, as determined by a certified arborist
or other qualified professional; or
4. The trees removed were nuisance trees; or
5. The trees were removed as part of a stream restoration and enhancement program
approved by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as improving riparian function;
or
6. The trees removed were orchard trees, Christmas trees, or commercial nursery trees
grown for commercial purposes; or
7. The application of this section will create an island of unincorporated area.
17.78.30 ZONING OF ANNEXED AREAS
A. All lands within the urban growth boundary of Sandy have been classified according to the
appropriate city land use designation as noted on the comprehensive plan map (as per the
city/county urban growth management area agreement). The zoning classification shall
reflect the city land use classification as illustrated in Table 17.26.20.
17.78.40 EXISTING USE, ACTIVITY OR STRUCTURE
Page 290 of 373
17.78 - 4
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
A. As of the effective date of annexation, no use or activity shall be considered non-conforming
if the use or activity: (1) violates or conflicts with county zoning regulations and (2) is not
classified as non-conforming under county zoning regulations. Any such use or activity shall
constitute a violation of this ordinance.
B. Any use, activity or structure that is existing at the effective date of annexation, under a
Clackamas County use permit with a time limit imposed, shall not be a non-conforming use,
but may continue for the extent of the time limit. Such use permits may not be extended
without City approval.
C. Any lot or parcel of land duly recorded in the Clackamas County Recorder's Office prior to
the effective date of this Ordinance and having an area, width, depth, or street frontage less
than that required in the Zoning District regulations in which such lot or parcel is situated,
shall be deemed to be a lot and may be used as a building site, provided that all other
regulations for the Zoning District shall apply.
17.78.50 ANNEXATION CRITERIA
Requests for annexation shall not have an adverse impact on the citizens of Sandy, either
financially or in relation to the livability of the city or any neighborhoods within the annexation
area.
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, an application to annex property into the
city shall meet the following criteria:
1. The application demonstrates how the property will be served by adequate public
facilities and services, including sanitary sewer, domestic water, transportation, internet
and parks. Public facilities and services must be provided in a manner consistent with the
City’s adopted public facility plans, comprehensive plan, transportation system plan,
parks and trails master plan, and any applicable area plan or master plan. The application
must demonstrate how the public facilities and services will be provided to the property
in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
2. The application demonstrates how impacts to existing City public facilities and services
(sewer, water, stormwater, and transportation) from development of the property will be
mitigated, if necessary. Mitigation may include construction of on-site or off-site
improvements or improvements to existing infrastructure to City standards and
specifications. The application must demonstrate adequate funding for the mitigation. If
the financing requires City funds, the funding must be approved by the City Council prior
to annexation. The City may rely on the standards and criteria of SMC Chapter 17.84
(Improvements Required with Development) and other relevant standards and criteria in
the comprehensive plan or development code to analyze an applicant’s proposed
mitigation of impacts. In order to ensure adequate public facilities and services will exist
to serve property annexed to the City, an applicant may be required to enter into an
agreement with the City that governs the extent and timing of infrastructure
improvements.
3. The application demonstrates that the annexation and proposed zoning is consistent with
the Transportation Planning Rule.
Page 291 of 373
17.78 - 5
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
4. The annexation is in the best interest of the City. Generally, the annexation is in the best
interest of the city if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
a. A needed solution for existing problems, resulting from insufficient sanitation, water
service, or other urban service related problems; or
b. Land for development to meet urban needs and that meets a logical growth pattern of
the city and encourages orderly growth; or
c. Needed routes for utility and transportation networks.
B. The standards described in paragraphs A.1 and A.2 above do not apply to:
1. An application to annex property that is smaller than one acre.
2. An “island” annexation under ORS 222.750
3. An annexation for which the City has executed an annexation agreement.
17.78.60 APPLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Requests for annexation shall be made on forms provided by the city for such purposes and shall
be accompanied by all of the following:
A. Written consent form to the annexation signed by the owners of all land to be annexed.
B. A legal description certified by a registered surveyor or engineer.
C. The application fee established by the city.
D. A list of property owners within one thousand (1,000) feet of the subject property and two
sets of mailing labels.
E. Vicinity map showing the area to be annexed including adjacent city territory.
F. Site Plan drawn to scale (not greater than one inch = fifty feet), indicating:
1. The location of existing structures (if any);
2. The location of streets, sewer, water, electric and other utilities, on or adjacent to the
property to be annexed;
3. Surveyed location of areas subject to regulation under Chapter 17.60, Flood and Slope
Hazard (FSH) Overlay District, including, but not limited to, wetland boundaries,
streams, top of bank, buffers, areas of 25 percent or greater slope, restricted development
areas, and the FSH analysis area.
G. Narrative Statement explaining the proposal and addressing:
Page 292 of 373
17.78 - 6
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
1. Availability, capacity and status of existing water, sewer, drainage, transportation, fire,
and park facilities;
2. Additional facilities, if any, required to meet the increased demand and any proposed
phasing of such facilities in accordance with projected demand;
3. Ability to adhere to adopted City plans including, but not limited to, the Transportation
System Plan, Parks and Trails Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Specific Area
Plans; and,
4. Method and source of financing required to provide additional facilities, if any.
H. Transportation Planning Rule findings.
17.78.70 REVIEW PROCEDURE
Type A, B & C
1. Pre-application conference;
2. Submission of completed application;
3. Review by Planning Commission with recommendation to City Council;
4. Review by City Council;
5. Approval or Denial by City Council.
17.78.80 EXCEPTIONS
Exceptions may be granted for identified health hazards and for those matters which the City
Council determines that the public interest would not be served by undertaking the entire
annexation process. The City Council may authorize an exception to any of the requirements of
this chapter. An exception shall require a statement of findings that indicates the basis for the
exception.
17.78.90 ANNEXATION CONDITIONS
A. All properties annexed are subject to inclusion within applicable advance financing districts
and urban renewal districts.
B. These conditions apply to all annexed properties regardless of transfers of the ownership of
such properties.
Page 293 of 373
Page 294 of 373
Page 295 of 373
May 27, 2020
Dear Planning Commission and City Staff:
Thank you for revising Sandy’s Annexation Code language. We believe that as one of the fastest
growing cities in Oregon, that we can, and should, implement strategies to decrease that growth
rate. We want this amended code to address the growth issues, including traffic, undersized and
outdated infrastructure, and school overcrowding. We know you cannot address school
crowding when developments are being approved, but it can be a factor in whether we annex
more property into our city for development. We know you cannot stop growth, but your
policies and code can make it more discretionary than what we currently have in place. We look
fondly back on the days when we could learn more about the proposal and vote on it based on
the merits!
Most importantly, we must ensure that we do not allow annexation of property that will lead to
the City being responsible for development costs including roads and utilities. The new code
should spell out that properties that require development of neighborhood access roads outside
City limits can and should be declined. Annexation should only be considered when landowners
and developers agree to pay for the development of all infrastructure needed for the
development. Oversizing water and sewer infrastructure can apply for SDC credits. The
proposal for future SDC credits (beyond the developer’s SDC’s should not be allowed as it
comes at the expense of tax payer road funds!). Developers must agree to road alignments that
locate roads on their property, instead of pushing it on to adjacent properties.
Please make sure to reference trails and open space in all park related language. We want to
ensure that our Parks and Trails Master Plan and future annexations give us the ability to have
sole discretion as is currently spelled out (but legally challenged by Bailey Meadows developers)
in 17.86 of our City code. This language appears to do that, but because our Parks and Trails
Master Plan amendment has not been adopted as of yet, I would ask that we ensure that the sole
discretion language include our ability to make decisions in the next 6-9 months based on draft
proposals in our Park Master Plan Amendment.
Please add a requirement that the notice and explanation of proposed annexation be posted in the
City newsletter and on the City government facebook (social media site). Annexations affect all
residents, not just the ones within 300-1000 feet. Bailey Meadows is a great example of this.
Annexations that propose zone changes are especially problematic because of the amount of
analysis to our overall Comprehensive Plan is needed to rejigger the available inventory of
different zones. All this takes considerable time ($$) by our City planning staff, when the are
already overloaded trying to deal with ongoing developments within the city. All this analysis
should be paid for by the developers.
Zone change proposals should have to be included in the annexation request or there should be a
multi-year period where they cannot request a zone change. Once they are annexed in, they put
more pressure on us, where as if we knew what the zone change was to be, we might not have
approved annexation in the first place!
Page 296 of 373
The proposed annexation code language is complicated and I have not had the time, nor have
other city residents, to understand what is being proposed, what it means to us as residents, and
what we want to edit or expand on in the language. The challenge we all face is with the more
devious developers that seek to threaten LUBA appeals and lawsuits to exploit loopholes in our
language, once they annex in. Perhaps there could be a clause in there that prohibits those
actions if they are annexed in. Your language that says they must meet all the plans, does not
cite chapter and verse of all the code, TSP standards, ADT standards, etc. so what is to stop Mr.
Robinson from challenging us on that once he is annexed in? Deja vu all over again!
I would also say that any annexations should not be allowed to do a planned unit development
unless that is spelled out with the annexation proposal. The PD’s are so vague and will result in
more high density growth, when we already have large areas zoned for medium and high
density!
These annexation code changes will help in that vein, in that it will hopefully ensure that
annexations are ONLY done when they benefit Sandy residents. I worry about what we are
missing. Annexations should only be approved when they can demonstrate that they are
responsible developers. agreeing to pay for their development and not stick it to us. They need
to agree to follow our existing code while making a reasonable profit and not be asking for
numerous variances that only benefit themselves.
I will be providing additional input on the proposed annexation code at the City Council. I am
sure other members of the public will also be commenting. Please know that when few if any
people come to your planning commission meetings, it is not because they don’t care! It is
because they don’t know about them and about what is being proposed. It takes time and effort
to get the word out, educate residents on what is proposed, what is within your decision space
and how to make intelligent input on the proposal that can be used. I believe it is better to get the
word out early, so that annexations, code changes, zone changes etc and changes to a proposed
development are more easily made, than when a staff report is completed, and you all are giving
your final blessings. We can and must to better on communication. It is our collective future!
Thank you for your considerable volunteer time and hard work to make our city better.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Walker
Page 297 of 373
Date: May 27, 2020
To: Sandy Planning Commission
From: Tracy Brown
Subject: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 17.78, Annexation
I am writing to express my concern with the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.78,
Annexation. The City of Sandy has historically had a straight forward and friendly
approach to annexing property. The current code allows a property owner to request
annexation of their property if the property meets basic criteria, is located within the
urban growth boundary, and is contiguous to the city limits.
The proposed amendments represent a significant departure from this approach and if
adopted this code is likely to effectively shut down the majority of future annexation
requests. In the least, the proposed code will add significant time and expense to the
annexation process for the average property owner.
The staff report included with this item provides little analysis to explain the reasons
for these changes or does it evaluate the pros and cons of the revisions. In addition,
there is no discussion regarding the significant cost burden that these changes will be
add to the average annexation application.
Specific Comments
1. Section 17.78.00, Intent is proposed to be amended to add a new subsection B that
reads,
B. Ensure that public facilities are or will be available to serve land annexed to
the City
Annexation of property is not a request to develop the property but rather a
request to change the property’s jurisdictional authority, allow residents residing
within the annexation area to vote in city elections and pay city taxes. Simply by
the fact that a property is located within the city’s Urban Growth Boundary a
certain level of analysis had already been done to ensure future development
potential. Annexation is not the time to require additional analysis to this degree.
2. Section 17.78.25, Tree Retention is proposed to be amended to require a ten year
cooling off period rather than five years in the current code before a property
owner could request annexation after tree removal. This seems to be subjective
and an excessive amount of time. I urge the Commission to reject this change. In
addition I also suggest the Commission consider reviewing all existing language in
this section as it is already very restrictive.
3. The most troubling and costly amendments are proposed to Section 17.78.50,
Annexation Criteria. Subsection 17.78.50(B) as proposed would require all
annexation applicant’s to demonstrate how the property will be served by sanitary
sewer, domestic water, transportation, internet service, and parks. An applicant
would also need to demonstrate how the property will be provided with public
Tracy Brown Annexation Code Comments Page of 1 2
Page 298 of 373
facilities and services in an “orderly, efficient, and timely manner”. I submit to
you that this is an almost impossible criteria to achieve without hiring a team of
consultants to design a complete project and get city approval prior to
annexation. The requirements in this section are unrealistic and will be extremely
burdensome for most applicant’s. The items in this section are appropriate as part
of a development application, not an annexation application. I urge you to reject
this change.
4. Section 17.78.50 (C) is even more problematic. This section requires an applicant
to demonstrate how impacts to the sewer, water, stormwater and transportation
system from development of the property will be mitigated. It also requires an
applicant to demonstrate there is adequate funding for the mitigation. The
requirements of this criteria are impossible to know until after approval of a
subdivision application or other development request. The majority of annexation
applicant’s are not aware of what can be done with their property other than they
want to bring it into the city. The requirements in this criteria are also very
confusing, burdensome, and unnecessary at this stage. If the items in this criteria
are a concern I suggest the Planning Commission consider amending subdivision
criteria instead. I urge you to reject this change.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.78, Annexations
represent a significant departure from the city’s current annexation approach. The
additional requirements contained in these revisions are likely to add significant time
and expense to annexation applications and may effectively shut down future
annexation requests. If it is the Commission’s intent to stop properties from
annexing, then these changes should be adopted. If on the other hand you are
interested in continuing to bring properties located in the urban growth boundary into
the city limits as they were intended, than I urge you to reject these changes. I am
unclear what the intent of these revisions really are other than possibly an
overreaction caused by a recent controversial subdivision application.
I urge you to push the pause button on these changes and to either recommend the
Council reject these amendment or to make significant changes to this language prior
to forwarding to the Council.
Tracy Brown Annexation Code Comments Page of 2 2
Page 299 of 373
Page 300 of 373
Page 301 of 373
Staff Report
Meeting Date: May 27, 2020
From Emily Meharg, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: 20-010 DCA Chapter 17.78 Annexation Code Amendments
Background:
File No. 20-010 DCA amends Chapter 17.78 of the Development Code, which contains
the procedures and conditions for annexation. The amendment clarifies annexation
criteria and required submittal items and includes additional minor modifications. The
Commission’s role in this process is to review the proposed code amendments and
forward a recommendation to the City Council.
Summary
The current Annexation code does not make it clear that properties requesting
annexation will need to demonstrate that they can and will develop in a manner
consistent with adopted City of Sandy plans such as the Comprehensive Plan,
Transportation System Plan, Parks and Trails Master Plan, public facility plans, and
other applicable area and master plans. The proposed amendments more clearly
identify annexation criteria and required submittal items. The amendments have been
reviewed by legal counsel. In addition, the amendments increase the annexation waiting
period for a property from a minimum of 5 years to a minimum of 10 years in the event
of significant tree removal.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing to take testimony
regarding modifications to Chapter 17.78 and forward a recommendation of approval to
the City Council.
Code Analysis:
See attached:
• Draft code changes
• Comments from Parks and Trails Advisory Board
Budgetary Impact:
None
Page 302 of 373
17.78 - 1
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
CHAPTER 17.78
ANNEXATION
17.78.00 INTENT
The procedures and standards established in this chapter are required for review of proposed
annexations in order to:
A. Maximize citizen involvement in the annexation review process by holding a public hearing;
B. Ensure that public facilities are or will be available to serve land annexed to the City;
B.C. Establish a system for measuring the physical, environmental, fiscal and related social
effects of proposed annexations; and,
C.D. Where possible and practical, avoid the creation of irregular boundaries or annexations
that create “island,” “cherry stem” or “shoestring” annexations.
17.78.10 PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. The corporate limits of the City shall include all territory encompassed by its boundaries as
they now exist or are modified as provided herein unless mandated by State Law.
B. The City may annex an unincorporated area that is surrounded by the City boundary.The City
may annex an island if it is less than 100 acres and has at least 80 percent of its boundary
contiguous to the City; or the land is of any size and has at least 80 percent of its boundary
contiguous to the City if the area to be annexed existed as an island before October 20, 1997.
C. The City may annex land for public facilities. Public facilities include but are not limited to
schools, senior centers, roads, police and fire stations, parks or open space, and public water,
sewer and storm drainage facilities.
17.78.15 TYPES OF ANNEXATION
A. Type A: Annexation in conformance with conceptual zoning designation
A.B. Type B: Annexation + zone change, including Parks and Open Space (POS) and/or Flood
and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District
B.C. Type C: Annexation + plan map change + zone change
17.78.20 CONDITIONS FOR ANNEXATION
The following conditions must be met prior to beginning an annexation request:
A. The requirement of Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapters 199 and 222 for initiation of the
annexation process are met;
Page 303 of 373
17.78 - 2
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
B. The site must be within the City of Sandy Urban Growth Boundary (UGB);
C. The site must be contiguous to the city or separated from it only by a public right-of-way or a
stream, bay, lake or other body of water; and.
D. The site has not violated Section 17.78.25.
17.78.25 TREE RETENTION
The intent of this section is to treat property with annexation potential (in the UGB) as if it had
been subject, prior to annexation, to the tree retention provisions of the City's Urban Forestry
Ordinance (Chapter 17.102) and Flood and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District (Chapter
17.60), to discourage property owners from removing trees prior to annexation as a way of
avoiding Urban Forestry Ordinance provisions, and to prevent unnecessary tree removal for
future subdivision layout. In accordance with ORS 527.722, the State Forester shall provide the
City with a copy of the notice or written plan when a forest operation is proposed within the
UGB. The City shall review and comment on an individual forest operation and inform the
landowner or operator of all other regulations that apply but that do not pertain to activities
regulated under the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
A. Properties shall not be considered for annexation for a minimum of five ten (105) years if any
of the following apply:
1. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater diameter at breast height (DBH) have been
removed within 25 feet of the high water level along a perennial stream in the five ten
years prior to the annexation application.
2. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 80 feet of the high water level of Tickle
Creek in the five ten years prior to the annexation application.
3. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 50 feet of the high water level along other
perennial streams in the five ten years prior to the annexation application.
4. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater DBH have been removed on 25 percent or
greater slopes in the five ten years prior to the annexation application.
5. Where more than ten (10) trees (11 inches or greater DBH) per gross acre have been
removed in the five ten years prior to the annexation application, except as provided
below:
a. Sites under one (1) acre in area shall not remove more than five (5) trees in the
five ten years prior to the annexation application.
b. Sites where removal of ten (10) or fewer trees will result in fewer than three (3)
trees per gross acre remaining on the site. Tree removal may not result in fewer
Page 304 of 373
17.78 - 3
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
than three (3) trees per gross acre remaining on the site. At least three (3) healthy,
non-nuisance trees 11 inches DBH or greater must be retained for every one-acre
of contiguous ownershipthe site not meeting the minimum tree retention
requirements of Chapter 17.102, Urban Forestry.
c. For properties in or adjacent to the Bornstedt Village Overlay (BVO), tree
removal must not result in fewer than six (6) healthy 11 inch DBH or greater trees
per acre. For properties in or adjacent to the BVO and within 300 feet of the FSH
Overlay District, tree removal must not result in fewer than nine (9) healthy 11
inch DBH or greater trees per acre.
Rounding: Site area shall be rounded to the nearest half acre and allowed tree
removal shall be calculated accordingly. For example, a 1.5 acre site will not be
allowed to remove more than fifteen (15) trees in the five ten years prior to the
annexation application. A calculation of 1.2 acres is rounded down to one (1) acre
and a calculation of 1.8 is rounded up to two (2) acres.
Cumulative Calculation: Total gross acreage includes riparian areas and other
sensitive habitat. Trees removed under Sections 17.78.25(A) 2. and 3. shall count
towards tree removal under Section 17.78.25(A) 5.
B. Exceptions. The City Council may grant exceptions to this section where:
1. The property owner can demonstrate that Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, or other
appropriate native trees were planted at a ratio of at least two trees for every one tree
removed no less than five ten years prior to the submission of the annexation application,
and at least 50 percent of these trees have remained healthy; or
2. The Council finds that tree removal was necessary due to hazards, or right-of-way or
utility facilities easements or access; or
3. The trees were removed because they were dead, dying, or diseased and their condition as
such resulted from an accident or non-human cause, as determined by a certified arborist
or other qualified professional; or
4. The trees removed were nuisance trees; or
5. The trees were removed as part of a stream restoration and enhancement program
approved by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as improving riparian function;
or
6. The trees removed were orchard trees, Christmas trees, or commercial nursery trees
grown for commercial purposes; or
7. The application of this section will create an island of unincorporated area.
17.78.30 ZONING OF ANNEXED AREAS
Page 305 of 373
17.78 - 4
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
A. All lands within the urban growth boundary of Sandy have been classified according to the
appropriate city land use designation as noted on the comprehensive plan map (as per the
city/county urban growth management area agreement). The zoning classification shall
reflect the city land use classification as illustrated in Table 17.26.20.
B. Where only a single city zoning designation corresponds to the comprehensive plan
designation (Type A) and the rezoning decision does not require the exercise of legal or
policy judgment on the part of the City Council, amendment of the zoning map shall be a
ministerial decision of the Director made without notice or any opportunity for a hearing.
17.78.40 EXISTING USE, ACTIVITY OR STRUCTURE
A. As of the effective date of annexation, no use or activity shall be considered non-conforming
if the use or activity: (1) violates or conflicts with county zoning regulations and (2) is not
classified as non-conforming under county zoning regulations. Any such use or activity shall
constitute a violation of this ordinance.
B. Any use, activity or structure that is existing at the effective date of annexation, under a
Clackamas County use permit with a time limit imposed, shall not be a non-conforming use,
but may continue for the extent of the time limit. Such use permits may not be extended
without City approval.
C. Any lot or parcel of land duly recorded in the Clackamas County Recorder's Office prior to
the effective date of this Ordinance and having an area, width, depth, or street frontage less
than that required in the Zoning District regulations in which such lot or parcel is situated,
shall be deemed to be a lot and may be used as a building site, provided that all other
regulations for the Zoning District shall apply.
17.78.50 ANNEXATION CRITERIA
Requests for annexation shall not have an adverse impact on the citizens of Sandy, either
financially or in relation to the livability of the city or any neighborhoods within the annexation
area. To demonstrate this, annexation requests An application to annex property into the city
shall meet the following criteria:
A. The annexation shall not have an adverse impact on the citizens of Sandy, either financially
or in relation to the livability of the city or any neighborhoods within the annexation area.
A.B. The application demonstrates how the property will be served by adequate public
facilities and services, including sanitary sewer, domestic water, transportation, internet and
parks., Public facilities and services must be provided in a manner consistent with the City’s
adopted public facility plans, comprehensive plan, transportation system plan, parks and
trails master plan, and any applicable area plan or master plan. The application must
demonstrate how the public facilities and services will be provided to the property in an
orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
C. The application demonstrates how impacts to existing City public facilities and services
(sewer, water, stormwater, and transportation) from development of the property will be
Page 306 of 373
17.78 - 5
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
mitigated. Mitigation may include construction of on-site or off-site improvements or
improvements to existing infrastructure to City standards and specifications. The application
must demonstrate adequate funding for the mitigation. If the financing requires City funds,
the funding must be approved by the City Council prior to annexation. The City may rely on
the standards and criteria of SMC Chapter 17.84 (Improvements Required with
Development) and other relevant standards and criteria in the comprehensive plan or
development code to analyze an applicant’s proposed mitigation of impacts. In order to
ensure adequate public facilities and services will exist to serve property annexed to the City,
an applicant may be required to enter into an agreement with the City that governs the extent
and timing of infrastructure improvements.
D. The application demonstrates that the annexation and proposed zoning is consistent with the
Transportation Planning Rule.
D.E. The annexation is in the best interest of the City. Generally, the annexation is in the best
interest of the city if it is desirable for the city to annex an area if the annexation meets one or
more any of the following criteria:
1. A necessary control for development form and standards of an area adjacent to the city;
or
2.1.A needed solution for existing problems, resulting from insufficient sanitation, water
service, or other urban service related problems; or
3.2.Land for development to meet urban needs and that meets a logical growth pattern of the
city and encourages orderly growth; or
4.3.Needed routes for utility and transportation networks.
17.78.60 APPLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Requests for annexation shall be made on forms provided by the city for such purposes and shall
be accompanied by all of the following:
A. Written consent form to the annexation signed by the owners of all land to be annexed.;
B. A legal description certified by a registered surveyor or engineer.;
C. The application fee established by the city.;
D. A list of property owners within three one thousandhundred (31,000) feet of the subject
property on and two sets of mailing labels.;
E. Vicinity map showing the area to be annexed including adjacent city territory.;
F. Site Plan (Type A=15 copies; Type B or C = 25 copies) drawn to scale (not greater than one
inch = fifty feet), indicating:
1. The location of existing structures (if any);
Page 307 of 373
17.78 - 6
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
2. The location of streets, sewer, water, electric and other utilities, on or adjacent to the
property to be annexed;
3. Approximate Surveyed location of areas subject to regulation under Chapter 17.60, Flood
and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District, including, but not limited to, wetland
boundaries, streams, top of bank, buffers, areas of 25 percent or greater slope, restricted
development areas, and the FSH analysis area.
G. Narrative Statement explaining the proposal and addressing:
1. Availability, capacity and status of existing water, sewer, drainage, transportation, fire,
and park and school facilities;
2. Additional facilities, if any, required to meet the increased demand and any proposed
phasing of such facilities in accordance with projected demand; and,
2.3.Ability to adhere to adopted City plans including, but not limited to, the Transportation
System Plan, Parks and Trails Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Specific Area
Plans; and,
4. Method and source of financing required to provide additional facilities, if any.
H. Transportation Planning Rule findings.
17.78.70 REVIEW PROCEDURE
Type A, B & C
1. Pre-application conference;
2. Submission of completed application;
3. Review by Planning Commission with recommendation to City Council;
4. Review by City Council.;
4.5.Approval or Denial by City Council.
17.78.80 EXCEPTIONS
Exceptions may be granted for identified health hazards and for those matters which the City
Council determines that the public interest would not be served by undertaking the entire
annexation process. The City Council may authorize an exception to any of the requirements of
this chapter. An exception shall require a statement of findings that indicates the basis for the
exception.
17.78.90 ANNEXATION CONDITIONS
A. All properties annexed are subject to inclusion within applicable advance financing districts
and urban renewal districts.
B. These conditions apply to all annexed properties regardless of transfers of the ownership of
such properties.
Page 308 of 373
Page 309 of 373
Page 310 of 373
Page 311 of 373
Page 312 of 373
Date: May 27, 2020
To: Sandy Planning Commission
From: Tracy Brown
Subject: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 17.78, Annexation
I am writing to express my concern with the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.78,
Annexation. The City of Sandy has historically had a straight forward and friendly
approach to annexing property. The current code allows a property owner to request
annexation of their property if the property meets basic criteria, is located within the
urban growth boundary, and is contiguous to the city limits.
The proposed amendments represent a significant departure from this approach and if
adopted this code is likely to effectively shut down the majority of future annexation
requests. In the least, the proposed code will add significant time and expense to the
annexation process for the average property owner.
The staff report included with this item provides little analysis to explain the reasons
for these changes or does it evaluate the pros and cons of the revisions. In addition,
there is no discussion regarding the significant cost burden that these changes will be
add to the average annexation application.
Specific Comments
1. Section 17.78.00, Intent is proposed to be amended to add a new subsection B that
reads,
B. Ensure that public facilities are or will be available to serve land annexed to
the City
Annexation of property is not a request to develop the property but rather a
request to change the property’s jurisdictional authority, allow residents residing
within the annexation area to vote in city elections and pay city taxes. Simply by
the fact that a property is located within the city’s Urban Growth Boundary a
certain level of analysis had already been done to ensure future development
potential. Annexation is not the time to require additional analysis to this degree.
2. Section 17.78.25, Tree Retention is proposed to be amended to require a ten year
cooling off period rather than five years in the current code before a property
owner could request annexation after tree removal. This seems to be subjective
and an excessive amount of time. I urge the Commission to reject this change. In
addition I also suggest the Commission consider reviewing all existing language in
this section as it is already very restrictive.
3. The most troubling and costly amendments are proposed to Section 17.78.50,
Annexation Criteria. Subsection 17.78.50(B) as proposed would require all
annexation applicant’s to demonstrate how the property will be served by sanitary
sewer, domestic water, transportation, internet service, and parks. An applicant
would also need to demonstrate how the property will be provided with public
Tracy Brown Annexation Code Comments Page of 1 2
Page 313 of 373
facilities and services in an “orderly, efficient, and timely manner”. I submit to
you that this is an almost impossible criteria to achieve without hiring a team of
consultants to design a complete project and get city approval prior to
annexation. The requirements in this section are unrealistic and will be extremely
burdensome for most applicant’s. The items in this section are appropriate as part
of a development application, not an annexation application. I urge you to reject
this change.
4. Section 17.78.50 (C) is even more problematic. This section requires an applicant
to demonstrate how impacts to the sewer, water, stormwater and transportation
system from development of the property will be mitigated. It also requires an
applicant to demonstrate there is adequate funding for the mitigation. The
requirements of this criteria are impossible to know until after approval of a
subdivision application or other development request. The majority of annexation
applicant’s are not aware of what can be done with their property other than they
want to bring it into the city. The requirements in this criteria are also very
confusing, burdensome, and unnecessary at this stage. If the items in this criteria
are a concern I suggest the Planning Commission consider amending subdivision
criteria instead. I urge you to reject this change.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.78, Annexations
represent a significant departure from the city’s current annexation approach. The
additional requirements contained in these revisions are likely to add significant time
and expense to annexation applications and may effectively shut down future
annexation requests. If it is the Commission’s intent to stop properties from
annexing, then these changes should be adopted. If on the other hand you are
interested in continuing to bring properties located in the urban growth boundary into
the city limits as they were intended, than I urge you to reject these changes. I am
unclear what the intent of these revisions really are other than possibly an
overreaction caused by a recent controversial subdivision application.
I urge you to push the pause button on these changes and to either recommend the
Council reject these amendment or to make significant changes to this language prior
to forwarding to the Council.
Tracy Brown Annexation Code Comments Page of 2 2
Page 314 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation Code
Modifications
PC Meeting 5/27/2020
Page 315 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation -Proposal
•Clarify annexation criteria regarding public
facilities and services.
•Clarify submission requirements regarding
compliance with City plans, Transportation
Planning Rule findings, and FSH mapping.
•Clarify annexation type for POS and/or FSH
zone changes.
•Increase noticing distance to 1,000 feet.
•Increase annexation waiting period to 10 years
for properties with significant tree removal.Page 316 of 373
#2020-13
NO. 2020-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.78 OF THE SANDY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO
ANNEXATIONS.
Whereas, the Sandy Municipal Code (SMC), Chapter 17.78, Annexation, contains procedures
and standards for the review of proposed annexations to the City;
Whereas, SMC Section 17.78.50 contains the review criteria for a proposed annexation and
Section 17.78.60 contains application requirements;
Whereas, the City Council has determined it is necessary to revise SMC Chapter 17.78 to more
clearly identify annexation criteria and required submittal items, and to make related
administrative updates and revisions to the chapter;
Whereas, the City Council has determined that the amendments to SMC Chapter 17.78 as set
forth below are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SANDY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS,
Section 1: Chapter 17.78 of the Sandy Municipal Code is amended as shown in Exhibit A.
Section 2: In support of this ordinance, the City Council adopts the findings and conclusions
attached as Exhibit B.
Section 3: All remaining provisions of the Sandy Comprehensive Plan and Title 17 of the Sandy
Municipal Code are reaffirmed in their entirety.
This ordinance is adopted by the Common Council of the City of Sandy and approved by the
Mayor this 15 day of June 2020
____________________________________
Stan Pulliam, Mayor
Page 317 of 373
#2020-13
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jeff Aprati, City Recorder
Page 318 of 373
Ordinance 2020-13
Exhibit B – Page 1
Exhibit B
Ordinance No. 2020-13
1. Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council held a public
hearing prior to adopting the ordinance. The Commission held a public hearing on May 27,
2020. The Council held a public hearing on June 15, 2020. The City provided notice of the public
hearings in accordance with state law and the City’s development code. The annexation code
(Section 17.78.00, Intent, and Section 17.78.70, Review Procedure) specifies that two public
hearings are required for all annexation applications to maximize citizen involvement in the
annexation review process. Goal 1 is satisfied.
2. Goal 2 – Land Use Planning. Goal 2 requires the ordinance to be coordinated with other
governmental entities and to be supported by an adequate factual base. The City provided
notice of the proposed ordinance to Clackamas County on May 1, 2020 and provided 35-day
notice to the State of Oregon on April 22, 2020. Goal 2 is satisfied.
3. Goal 3 – Agricultural Lands. Goal 3 does not apply to the decision.
4. Goal 4 – Forest Lands. Goal 4 requires the City to “conserve forest lands by maintaining the
forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically
efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree
species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water,
and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.”
Section 17.78.25, Tree Retention, addresses tree retention on properties outside the City of
Sandy limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). In the past, property owners have
clear-cut their forested land in anticipation of annexing and subdividing. Goal 4 is satisfied.
5. Goal 5 – Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. Goal 5 requires the
City to “protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.”
Riparian areas and fish and wildlife habitat are listed as protected Goal 5 resources. Limiting tree
removal helps protect natural resources. Goal 5 is satisfied.
6. Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. Goal 6 requires the city to “maintain and
improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.” Limiting tree removal in
riparian areas helps maintain water quality. Tree retention in general helps maintain both air
and soil quality. Goal 6 is satisfied to the extent it applies to the decision.
7. Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. Goal 7 requires the City to “protect people and
property from natural hazards.” Section 17.78.25, Tree Retention, limits tree removal on steep
slopes (slopes 25 percent or greater) prior to annexation. Limiting tree removal on steep slopes
helps prevent erosion and landslides. Goal 7 is satisfied to the extent it applies to the decision.
8. Goal 8 – Recreational Needs. No resorts are contemplated or authorized by this decision. The
City’s comprehensive plan, parks master plan, and development regulations governing
recreational needs (e.g. park dedication/fee in-lieu-of requirements, open space provisions, etc.)
are not affected by the decision. Goal 8 is satisfied to the extent it applies to the decision.
Page 319 of 373
Ordinance 2020-13
Exhibit B – Page 2
9. Goal 9 – Economic Development. The City has adopted an economic opportunities analysis
(“EOA”) as Goal 9 requires. The EOA includes in its analysis all properties within the City’s urban
growth boundary, including unincorporated property. Nothing in this text amendment affects
any aspect of the EOA. Therefore, Goal 9 is satisfied.
10. Goal 10 – Housing. The City has an adopted buildable lands inventory and housing needs
analysis. Those studies include all properties within the City’s urban growth boundary, including
unincorporated property. Nothing in this text amendment affects any aspect of those studies.
Therefore, Goal 10 is satisfied.
11. Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services. The City has an existing public facilities plan that
includes all properties within the City’s urban growth boundary, including islands of
unincorporated property. The plan assumes that the City is serving islands of unincorporated
property and only properties contiguous to the City will be allowed to annex. The amendments
will clarify annexation criteria with respect to public facilities and services requirements.
Therefore, this text amendment will not undermine or contradict any aspect of the existing
public facilities plan. Goal 11 is satisfied.
12. Goal 12 – Transportation. The decision does not affect the City’s comprehensive plan with
respect to Goal 12, or its transportation system plan or the standards governing transportation
and transportation-related facilities. The City’s comprehensive plan includes an acknowledged
Goal 12 element that contains policies to ensure sufficient and adequate transportation facilities
and services are available (or will be available as appropriate) to serve lands within the UGB.
The City’s existing TSP anticipates and accounts for the potential development of all land inside
the UGB in its analysis. This Ordinance does not affect either the Goal 12 element or the TSP.
Moreover, the transportation planning rule is triggered only when a post-acknowledgment
amendment “significantly affects” a transportation facility. The amendments will clarify
annexation criteria and application submittal requirements related to transportation and the
Transportation Planning Rule. The ordinance does not meet the definition of a “significant
effect” pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a)-(c) because it will not: (1) change the functional
classification of an existing or future facility; (2) change the standards implementing the
functional classification system; or (3) result in any of the effects listed in 0060(1)(c)(A)-(C).
Therefore, Goal 12 is satisfied for the purposes of this decision.
13. Goal 13 – Energy Conservation. The City’s comprehensive plan with respect to Goal 13 and its
standards governing energy conservation are not affected by the decision. Goal 13 is satisfied.
14. Goal 14 – Urbanization. The decision does not analyze or expand the City’s urban growth
boundary. Goal 14 is not applicable.
Page 320 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation Code
Modifications
City Council Meeting 6/15/2020
Page 321 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation -Proposal
•Clarify annexation criteria regarding public
facilities and services.
–Small annexations < 1 acre, island annexations per
ORS 222.750, and properties with annexation
agreements are exempt from being required to
demonstrate how the property will be served by
adequate public facilities and services and how
impacts will be mitigated.Page 322 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation -Proposal
•Clarify submission requirements regarding
compliance with City plans, Transportation
Planning Rule findings, and FSH mapping.
•Clarify annexation type for POS and/or FSH zone
changes.
•Increase noticing distance to 1,000 feet.Page 323 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation -
Background
•The proposed requirements to complete some
analysis prior to annexation will make the
annexation process slightly more expensive but
will give the City Council some assurances prior
to making a land use decision of this magnitude.
–Most property owners that annex typically do so in
preparation of either development or as part of a
property sale where a developer is trying to secure
their entitlements prior to the sale being completed. Page 324 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation -
Background
–Most property owners who annex will pay for the
master plan analysis through direct payments by the
developer or by a reduction in sale price.
–Either way the master plan analysis is factored into
the property value.
–In cases where a property owner does not have an
interested developer the required master plan
analysis should assist in selling the property after
annexation.Page 325 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation –
Background
–Based on the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, staff sent notice of the proposed
changes to the annexation code to all property
owners outside City limits but within the UGB.Page 326 of 373
Chapter 17.78 Annexation –
Background
–Staff originally proposed increasing the annexation
waiting period for significant tree removal from 5
years to 10 years.
–The Planning Commission ultimately voted to keep it
at 5 years.
–Since the PC meeting, staff has received many public
comments in support of increasing the annexation
waiting period for significant tree removal to 10 or
more years. Page 327 of 373
#2020-13
NO. 2020-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.78 OF THE SANDY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO
ANNEXATIONS.
Whereas, the Sandy Municipal Code (SMC), Chapter 17.78, Annexation, contains procedures
and standards for the review of proposed annexations to the City;
Whereas, SMC Section 17.78.50 contains the review criteria for a proposed annexation and
Section 17.78.60 contains application requirements;
Whereas, the City Council has determined it is necessary to revise SMC Chapter 17.78 to more
clearly identify annexation criteria and required submittal items, and to make related
administrative updates and revisions to the chapter;
Whereas, SMC Section 17.78.25 contains tree retention standards that allows the City to apply
its tree retention standards to a proposed annexation;
Whereas, the City Council seeks to discourage tree removal within the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) and to require an increased annexation waiting period in the event of significant tree
removal prior to annexation;
Whereas, the City Council has determined that the amendments to SMC Chapter 17.78 as set
forth below are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SANDY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS,
Section 1: Chapter 17.78 of the Sandy Municipal Code is amended as shown in Exhibit A.
Section 2: In support of this ordinance, the City Council adopts the findings and conclusions
attached as Exhibit B.
Section 3: All remaining provisions of the Sandy Comprehensive Plan and Title 17 of the Sandy
Municipal Code are reaffirmed in their entirety.
This ordinance is adopted by the Common Council of the City of Sandy and approved by the
Mayor this 06 day of July 2020
Page 328 of 373
#2020-13
____________________________________
Stan Pulliam, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jeff Aprati, City Recorder
Page 329 of 373
17.78 - 1
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
CHAPTER 17.78
ANNEXATION
17.78.00 INTENT
The procedures and standards established in this chapter are required for review of proposed
annexations in order to:
A. Maximize citizen involvement in the annexation review process by holding a public hearing;
B. Ensure that public facilities are or will be available to serve land annexed to the City;
C. Establish a system for measuring the physical, environmental, fiscal and related social effects
of proposed annexations; and,
D. Where possible and practical, avoid the creation of irregular boundaries or annexations that
create “island,” “cherry stem” or “shoestring” annexations.
17.78.10 PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. The corporate limits of the City shall include all territory encompassed by its boundaries as
they now exist or are modified as provided herein unless mandated by State Law.
B. The City may annex an unincorporated area that is surrounded by the City boundary.
C. The City may annex land for public facilities. Public facilities include but are not limited to
schools, senior centers, roads, police and fire stations, parks or open space, and public water,
sewer and storm drainage facilities.
17.78.15 TYPES OF ANNEXATION
A. Type A: Annexation in conformance with conceptual zoning designation
B. Type B: Annexation + zone change, including Parks and Open Space (POS) and/or Flood
and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District
C. Type C: Annexation + plan map change + zone change
17.78.20 CONDITIONS FOR ANNEXATION
The following conditions must be met prior to beginning an annexation request:
A. The requirement of Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapters 199 and 222 for initiation of the
annexation process are met;
B. The site must be within the City of Sandy Urban Growth Boundary (UGB);
Page 330 of 373
17.78 - 2
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
C. The site must be contiguous to the city or separated from it only by a public right-of-way or a
stream, bay, lake or other body of water; and
D. The site has not violated Section 17.78.25.
17.78.25 TREE RETENTION
The intent of this section is to treat property with annexation potential (in the UGB) as if it had
been subject, prior to annexation, to the tree retention provisions of the City's Urban Forestry
Ordinance (Chapter 17.102) and Flood and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District (Chapter
17.60), to discourage property owners from removing trees prior to annexation as a way of
avoiding Urban Forestry Ordinance provisions, and to prevent unnecessary tree removal for
future subdivision layout. In accordance with ORS 527.722, the State Forester shall provide the
City with a copy of the notice or written plan when a forest operation is proposed within the
UGB. The City shall review and comment on an individual forest operation and inform the
landowner or operator of all other regulations that apply but that do not pertain to activities
regulated under the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
A. Properties shall not be considered for annexation for a minimum of ten (10) years if any of
the following apply:
1. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater diameter at breast height (DBH) have been
removed within 25 feet of the high water level along a perennial stream in the ten (10)
years prior to the annexation application.
2. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 80 feet of the high water level of Tickle
Creek in the ten (10) years prior to the annexation application.
3. Where more than two (2) trees (six (6) inches or greater DBH) per 500 linear feet have
been removed in the area between 25 feet and 50 feet of the high water level along other
perennial streams in the ten (10) years prior to the annexation application.
4. Where any trees six (6) inches or greater DBH have been removed on 25 percent or
greater slopes in the ten (10) years prior to the annexation application.
5. Where more than ten (10) trees (11 inches or greater DBH) per gross acre have been
removed in the ten (10) years prior to the annexation application, except as provided
below:
a. Sites under one (1) acre in area shall not remove more than five (5) trees in the ten
(10) years prior to the annexation application.
b. Sites where removal of ten (10) or fewer trees will result in the site not meeting
the minimum tree retention requirements of Chapter 17.102, Urban Forestry.
c. For properties in or adjacent to the Bornstedt Village Overlay (BVO), tree
removal must not result in fewer than six (6) healthy 11 inch DBH or greater trees
Page 331 of 373
17.78 - 3
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
per acre. For properties in or adjacent to the BVO and within 300 feet of the FSH
Overlay District, tree removal must not result in fewer than nine (9) healthy 11
inch DBH or greater trees per acre.
Rounding: Site area shall be rounded to the nearest half acre and allowed tree removal shall
be calculated accordingly. For example, a 1.5 acre site will not be allowed to remove more
than fifteen (15) trees in the ten (10) years prior to the annexation application. A calculation
of 1.2 acres is rounded down to one (1) acre and a calculation of 1.8 is rounded up to two (2)
acres.
Cumulative Calculation: Total gross acreage includes riparian areas and other sensitive
habitat. Trees removed under Sections 17.78.25(A) 2. and 3. shall count towards tree removal
under Section 17.78.25(A) 5.
B. Exceptions. The City Council may grant exceptions to this section where:
1. The property owner can demonstrate that Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, or other
appropriate native trees were planted at a ratio of at least two trees for every one tree
removed no less than ten (10) years prior to the submission of the annexation application,
and at least 50 percent of these trees have remained healthy; or
2. The Council finds that tree removal was necessary due to hazards, or right-of-way or
utility facilities or access; or
3. The trees were removed because they were dead, dying, or diseased and their condition as
such resulted from an accident or non-human cause, as determined by a certified arborist
or other qualified professional; or
4. The trees removed were nuisance trees; or
5. The trees were removed as part of a stream restoration and enhancement program
approved by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as improving riparian function;
or
6. The trees removed were orchard trees, Christmas trees, or commercial nursery trees
grown for commercial purposes; or
7. The application of this section will create an island of unincorporated area.
17.78.30 ZONING OF ANNEXED AREAS
A. All lands within the urban growth boundary of Sandy have been classified according to the
appropriate city land use designation as noted on the comprehensive plan map (as per the
city/county urban growth management area agreement). The zoning classification shall
reflect the city land use classification as illustrated in Table 17.26.20.
Page 332 of 373
17.78 - 4
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
17.78.40 EXISTING USE, ACTIVITY OR STRUCTURE
A. As of the effective date of annexation, no use or activity shall be considered non-conforming
if the use or activity: (1) violates or conflicts with county zoning regulations and (2) is not
classified as non-conforming under county zoning regulations. Any such use or activity shall
constitute a violation of this ordinance.
B. Any use, activity or structure that is existing at the effective date of annexation, under a
Clackamas County use permit with a time limit imposed, shall not be a non-conforming use,
but may continue for the extent of the time limit. Such use permits may not be extended
without City approval.
C. Any lot or parcel of land duly recorded in the Clackamas County Recorder's Office prior to
the effective date of this Ordinance and having an area, width, depth, or street frontage less
than that required in the Zoning District regulations in which such lot or parcel is situated,
shall be deemed to be a lot and may be used as a building site, provided that all other
regulations for the Zoning District shall apply.
17.78.50 ANNEXATION CRITERIA
Requests for annexation shall not have an adverse impact on the citizens of Sandy, either
financially or in relation to the livability of the city or any neighborhoods within the annexation
area.
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, an application to annex property into the
city shall meet the following criteria:
1. The application demonstrates how the property will be served by adequate public
facilities and services, including sanitary sewer, domestic water, transportation, internet
and parks. Public facilities and services must be provided in a manner consistent with the
City’s adopted public facility plans, comprehensive plan, transportation system plan,
parks and trails master plan, and any applicable area plan or master plan. The application
must demonstrate how the public facilities and services will be provided to the property
in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
2. The application demonstrates how impacts to existing City public facilities and services
(sewer, water, stormwater, and transportation) from development of the property will be
mitigated, if necessary. Mitigation may include construction of on-site or off-site
improvements or improvements to existing infrastructure to City standards and
specifications. The application must demonstrate adequate funding for the mitigation. If
the financing requires City funds, the funding must be approved by the City Council prior
to annexation. The City may rely on the standards and criteria of SMC Chapter 17.84
(Improvements Required with Development) and other relevant standards and criteria in
the comprehensive plan or development code to analyze an applicant’s proposed
mitigation of impacts. In order to ensure adequate public facilities and services will exist
to serve property annexed to the City, an applicant may be required to enter into an
agreement with the City that governs the extent and timing of infrastructure
improvements.
Page 333 of 373
17.78 - 5
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
3. The application demonstrates that the annexation and proposed zoning is consistent with
the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) or explains that the TPR analysis is not required.
4. The annexation is in the best interest of the City. Generally, the annexation is in the best
interest of the city if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
a. A needed solution for existing problems, resulting from insufficient sanitation, water
service, or other urban service related problems; or
b. Land for development to meet urban needs and that meets a logical growth pattern of
the city and encourages orderly growth; or
c. Needed routes for utility and transportation networks.
B. The standards described in paragraphs A.1 and A.2 above do not apply to:
1. An application to annex property that is smaller than one acre.
2. An “island” annexation under ORS 222.750.
3. An annexation for which the City has executed an annexation agreement and the
agreement allows for A.1 and A.2 to be delayed until development is proposed.
17.78.60 APPLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Requests for annexation shall be made on forms provided by the city for such purposes and shall
be accompanied by all of the following:
A. Written consent form to the annexation signed by the owners of all land to be annexed.
B. A legal description certified by a registered surveyor or engineer.
C. The application fee established by the city.
D. A list of property owners within one thousand (1,000) feet of the subject property and two
sets of mailing labels.
E. Vicinity map showing the area to be annexed including adjacent city territory.
F. Site Plan drawn to scale (not greater than one inch = fifty feet), indicating:
1. The location of existing structures (if any);
2. The location of streets, sewer, water, electric and other utilities, on or adjacent to the
property to be annexed;
3. Approximate or surveyed location of areas subject to regulation under Chapter 17.60,
Flood and Slope Hazard (FSH) Overlay District, including, but not limited to, wetland
boundaries, streams, top of bank, buffers, areas of 25 percent or greater slope, restricted
development areas, and the FSH analysis area. If the applicant wants to avoid an
Page 334 of 373
17.78 - 6
Revised by Ordinance No. 2017-05 (effective 09/06/17)
additional zone map modification request at time of development, then these areas will
need to be surveyed at the time of annexation application submittal.
G. Narrative Statement explaining the proposal and addressing:
1. Availability, capacity and status of existing water, sewer, drainage, transportation, fire,
and park facilities;
2. Additional facilities, if any, required to meet the increased demand and any proposed
phasing of such facilities in accordance with projected demand;
3. Ability to adhere to adopted City plans including, but not limited to, the Transportation
System Plan, Parks and Trails Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Specific Area
Plans; this analysis may be deferred if the applicant enters into an annexation agreement
as provided in Section 17.78.50(B); and,
4. Method and source of financing required to provide additional facilities, if any.
H. Transportation Planning Rule findings, if applicable.
17.78.70 REVIEW PROCEDURE
Type A, B & C
1. Pre-application conference;
2. Submission of completed application;
3. Review by Planning Commission with recommendation to City Council;
4. Review by City Council;
5. Approval or denial by City Council.
17.78.80 EXCEPTIONS
Exceptions may be granted for identified health hazards and for those matters which the City
Council determines that the public interest would not be served by undertaking the entire
annexation process. The City Council may authorize an exception to any of the requirements of
this chapter. An exception shall require a statement of findings that indicates the basis for the
exception.
17.78.90 ANNEXATION CONDITIONS
A. All properties annexed are subject to inclusion within applicable advance financing districts
and urban renewal districts.
B. These conditions apply to all annexed properties regardless of transfers of the ownership of
such properties.
Page 335 of 373
Ordinance 2020-13
Exhibit B – Page 1
Exhibit B
Ordinance No. 2020-13
1. Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council held a public
hearing prior to adopting the ordinance. The Commission held a public hearing on May 27,
2020. The Council held a public hearing on June 15, 2020. The City provided notice of the public
hearings in accordance with state law and the City’s development code. The annexation code
(Section 17.78.00, Intent, and Section 17.78.70, Review Procedure) specifies that two public
hearings are required for all annexation applications to maximize citizen involvement in the
annexation review process. Goal 1 is satisfied.
2. Goal 2 – Land Use Planning. Goal 2 requires the ordinance to be coordinated with other
governmental entities and to be supported by an adequate factual base. The City provided
notice of the proposed ordinance to Clackamas County on May 1, 2020 and provided 35-day
notice to the State of Oregon on April 22, 2020. Goal 2 is satisfied.
3. Goal 3 – Agricultural Lands. Goal 3 does not apply to the decision.
4. Goal 4 – Forest Lands. Goal 4 requires the City to “conserve forest lands by maintaining the
forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically
efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree
species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water,
and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.”
Section 17.78.25, Tree Retention, addresses tree retention on properties outside the City of
Sandy limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). In the past, property owners have
clear-cut their forested land in anticipation of annexing and subdividing. Updates to this section
of the code are intended to discourage property owners from clear cutting their property prior
to annexation to help prevent unnecessary loss of forest land by increasing the annexation
waiting period in the event of significant tree removal prior to annexation. Goal 4 is satisfied.
5. Goal 5 – Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. Goal 5 requires the
City to “protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.”
Riparian areas and fish and wildlife habitat are listed as protected Goal 5 resources. The updates
to Section 17.78.25, Tree Retention, are designed to better protect riparian areas and habitat by
increasing the annexation waiting period in the event of significant tree removal prior to
annexation. Goal 5 is satisfied.
6. Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. Goal 6 requires the city to “maintain and
improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.” The updates to Section
17.78.25, Tree Retention, are intended to limit unnecessary tree removal prior to annexation by
increasing the annexation waiting period in the event of significant tree removal prior to
annexation. Limiting tree removal in riparian areas also helps maintain water quality. Tree
retention in general helps maintain both air and soil quality. Goal 6 is satisfied to the extent it
applies to the decision.
7. Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. Goal 7 requires the City to “protect people and
property from natural hazards.” Section 17.78.25, Tree Retention, limits tree removal on steep
Page 336 of 373
Ordinance 2020-13
Exhibit B – Page 2
slopes (slopes 25 percent or greater) prior to annexation. Limiting tree removal on steep slopes
helps prevent erosion and landslides. Goal 7 is satisfied to the extent it applies to the decision.
8. Goal 8 – Recreational Needs. No resorts are contemplated or authorized by this decision. The
City’s comprehensive plan, parks master plan, and development regulations governing
recreational needs (e.g. park dedication/fee in-lieu-of requirements, open space provisions, etc.)
are not affected by the decision. Goal 8 is satisfied to the extent it applies to the decision.
9. Goal 9 – Economic Development. The City has adopted an economic opportunities analysis
(“EOA”) as Goal 9 requires. The EOA includes in its analysis all properties within the City’s urban
growth boundary, including unincorporated property. Nothing in this text amendment affects
any aspect of the EOA. Therefore, Goal 9 is satisfied.
10. Goal 10 – Housing. The City has an adopted buildable lands inventory and housing needs
analysis. Those studies include all properties within the City’s urban growth boundary, including
unincorporated property. Nothing in this text amendment affects any aspect of those studies.
Therefore, Goal 10 is satisfied.
11. Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services. The City has an existing public facilities plan that
includes all properties within the City’s urban growth boundary, including islands of
unincorporated property. The plan assumes that the City is serving islands of unincorporated
property and only properties contiguous to the City will be allowed to annex. The amendments
will clarify annexation criteria with respect to public facilities and services requirements.
Therefore, this text amendment will not undermine or contradict any aspect of the existing
public facilities plan. Goal 11 is satisfied.
12. Goal 12 – Transportation. The decision does not affect the City’s comprehensive plan with
respect to Goal 12, or its transportation system plan or the standards governing transportation
and transportation-related facilities. The City’s comprehensive plan includes an acknowledged
Goal 12 element that contains policies to ensure sufficient and adequate transportation facilities
and services are available (or will be available as appropriate) to serve lands within the UGB.
The City’s existing TSP anticipates and accounts for the potential development of all land inside
the UGB in its analysis. This Ordinance does not affect either the Goal 12 element or the TSP.
Moreover, the transportation planning rule is triggered only when a post-acknowledgment
amendment “significantly affects” a transportation facility. The amendments will clarify
annexation criteria and application submittal requirements related to transportation and the
Transportation Planning Rule. The ordinance does not meet the definition of a “significant
effect” pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a)-(c) because it will not: (1) change the functional
classification of an existing or future facility; (2) change the standards implementing the
functional classification system; or (3) result in any of the effects listed in 0060(1)(c)(A)-(C).
Therefore, Goal 12 is satisfied for the purposes of this decision.
13. Goal 13 – Energy Conservation. The City’s comprehensive plan with respect to Goal 13 and its
standards governing energy conservation are not affected by the decision. Goal 13 is satisfied.
14. Goal 14 – Urbanization. The decision does not analyze or expand the City’s urban growth
boundary. Goal 14 is not applicable.
Page 337 of 373
Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 6, 2020
From Mike Walker, Public Works Director
SUBJECT:
Resolution 2020-16 Declaring the City's intent to Acquire certain
Real Property, Temporary and Permanent Easements
Background:
The preliminary design for the US 26 Ten Eyck - Vista Loop Pedestrian Improvements
Project is far enough along to identify the temporary and permanent easements that will
be necessary to construct the improvements. The agreement between ODOT and the
City requires the local agency (Sandy) to be the legal entity that acquires the right-of-
way. Before the right-of-way consultant can appraise the properties or make an offer a
Resolution of Public Necessity must be adopted.
There are eight temporary or permanent easements that must be obtained to
accommodate the project. No real property will be acquired nor will any improvements
(buildings, dwellings, etc.) be affected by the easements required. Some properties will
need to provide a slope easement, temporary work area and a driveway/approach
reconnection easement. Some parcels will only need to provide one or two easements.
The easements range in size between 199 sq. ft. and 2,627 sq. ft. The temporary
easements are needed to allow equipment to work and materials to be placed to
support the retaining walls or fills necessary to build the pedestrian path. The duration
of the temporary easements is two years or the completion of the project, whichever
comes first. The permanent easements are needed to place retaining walls, construct fill
slopes and make adjustments to existing driveways to make them better match the the
new slopes required for the pedestrian path. All offers for easements will be based on
an appraisal, a review appraisal and fair and just compensation for these rights.
The temporary easements on each parcel are shown in green and red and the
permanent easements are shown in purple on Exhibits A through H to the resolution.
As with any land acquisition the intent is to use eminent domain authority as a last
resort and it is expected that the compensation offered for the easements will be
agreeable to the property owners. Condemnation would only be necessary in the event
ODOT and the property owner cannot agree on compensation or the property owner
doesn't respond to an offer in a reasonable amount of time.
Recommendation:
Move to approve Resolution 2020-16.
Page 338 of 373
#2020-16
NO. 2020-16
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE NEED TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN PROPERTY AND TEMPORARY
AND PERMANENT EASEMENTS TO CONSTRUCT A PEDESTRIAN PATH AND RELATED
IMPROVEMENTS BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE CITY LIMITS OF SANDY.
Whereas, under the City of Sandy Charter and pursuant to the laws of the State of Oregon, the
City of sandy is duly authorized and empowered to locate, acquire, construct, reconstruct, alter,
enlarge, renew, replace, operate and maintain such pedestrian improvements and associated
facilities as in the judgment of its City council are necessary and proper for the city’s welfare;
and
Whereas, the City Council has determined that it is in the City’s best interest to construct a
pedestrian pathway and related improvements on the north side of US 26 between Ten Eyck Rd.
and Vista Loop Drive to separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic; and
Whereas, under the City’s Charter and in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon, the
City of sandy may acquire by purchase, gift, devise, eminent domain or otherwise, such real and
personal property, interests therein and rights-of-way and easements permanent and temporary,
either within or without the limits of the City as the City Council deems necessary or proper to
exercise its powers, including the pedestrian improvements; and
Whereas, ORS 223.005 expressly authorizes the City to appropriate real property within or
without its corporate limits for any public or municipal use and more specifically, ORS 225.930
expressly authorizes the City to use its condemnation power to acquire such rights of way as may
be required, both within and outside its boundaries, for pedestrian improvements;
Whereas, for the purpose of providing safe pedestrian passage along US 26 to serve the city and
for the health, safety, benefit and general welfare of the public, the City of Sandy plans to locate,
acquire, construct, operate and maintain certain pedestrian and related improvements on property
within the City Limits and in Clackamas County as further described in the attached exhibits A
through H.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sandy
1. The City of Sandy finds and declares that it must acquire the real property and the
interests therein described in attached Exhibits A through H in order to locate, construct,
operate, maintain, repair and improve the City of Sandy’s pedestrian access network.
Exhibits A through H are incorporated into this resolution by this reference.
Page 339 of 373
#2020-16
2. The pedestrian improvements that the City will make on the real property described in the
attached Exhibits A through H must be owned and controlled by the City and, as such,
the interest in the property is both required and being taken as necessary in the public
interest. The improvements to said property will be planned, designed, located and
constructed in a manner such that it will be compatible with the greatest public benefit
and the least private injury or damage.
3. The City Manager, the City Attorney and agents of their choosing are authorized to
attempt to agree with the owners and other persons with interest in the real property
described in Exhibits A through H as to the compensation to be paid for the City’s
appropriation of the property. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached, then the City
Attorney such determination final prosecute to commence to authorized is and
proceedings as may be necessary to acquire the real property and interest therein and that
upon the filing of such proceeding, possession of the real property and interest therein
may be taken immediately.
4. This resolution is effective immediately upon its passage.
This resolution is adopted by the Common Council of the City of Sandy and approved by the
Mayor this 06 day of July 2020
____________________________________
Stan Pulliam, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jeff Aprati, City Recorder
Page 340 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 1 of 3 File 9589001
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 1 – Permanent Easement for Slopes, Water, Gas, Electric and Communication
Service Lines, Fixtures and Facilities
A parcel of land lying in the NE¼SE¼ of Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 4 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Statutory Bargain and Sale Deed to Judy A. Junkins, Sole Trustee or her successors in
trust under the Junkins Living Trust dated January 6, 1999, recorded April 18, 2003 as
Recorder’s Fee No. 2003-048539, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel
being that portion of said property lying Southeasterly of a line at right angles to the center
line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway at Engineer’s Station “L1” 12+45.00 and included
in a strip of land 95.00 feet in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said center line,
which center line is described as follows:
Beginning at Engineer's center line Station "L1" 0+82.90, said Station being 97.15 feet
North and 1360.60 feet West of the one-quarter Section Corner common to Section 13,
Township 2 South, Range 4 East and Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, W.M.,
said corner being marked by a 3-1/4” brass disk stamped "CLACKAMAS COUNTY
SURVEYOR T2S R4E R5E 1/4 13|18 2006"; thence South 77°56'36" East 26.48 feet;
thence on a spiral curve right (the long chord of which bears South 77°11'36" East 299.98
feet) 300.00 feet; thence on a 3819.72 foot radius curve right (the long chord of which
bears South 63°12'29" East 1651.58 feet) 1664.72 feet; thence on a spiral curve right (the
long chord of which bears South 49°13'21" East 299.98 feet) 300.00 feet; thence South
48°28'21" East 1125.90 feet to Engineer’s center line Station “L1” 35+00.00.
Bearings are based on the Oregon Coordinate Reference System, Gresham - Warm
Springs Zone, NAD 83 (2011) EPOCH 2010.00.
This parcel of land contains 2,627 square feet, more or less.
Page 341 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 2 of 3 File 9589001
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 2 – Temporary Easement for Work Area (3 years or duration of Project,
whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NE¼SE¼ of Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 4 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Statutory Bargain and Sale Deed to Judy A. Junkins, Sole Trustee or her successors in
trust under the Junkins Living Trust dated January 6, 1999, recorded April 18, 2003 as
Recorder’s Fee No. 2003-048539, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel
being that portion of said property lying between lines at right angles to the center line of
the relocated Mt. Hood Highway at Engineer’s Stations “L1” 12+06.00 and “L1” 12+45.00,
and included in a strip of land 75.00 feet in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said
center line, which center line is described in Parcel 1.
This parcel of land contains 199 square feet, more or less.
Page 342 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 3 of 3 File 9589001
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 3 - Temporary Easement for Driveway/Road Approach Reconnection (3 years
or duration of Project, whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NE¼SE¼ of Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 4 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Statutory Bargain and Sale Deed to Judy A. Junkins, Sole Trustee or her successors in
trust under the Junkins Living Trust dated January 6, 1999, recorded April 18, 2003 as
Recorder’s Fee No. 2003-048539, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel
being that portion of said property lying between lines at right angles to the center line of
the relocated Mt. Hood Highway at Engineer’s Stations “L1” 10+67.00 and “L1” 11+13.00,
and included in a strip of land variable in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said
center line, which center line is described in Parcel 1.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 10+67.00 “L1” 10+73.00 70.00 in a straight line to 85.00
“L1” 10+73.00 “L1” 11+13.00 85.00 in a straight line to 70.00
This parcel of land contains 350 square feet, more or less.
Page 343 of 373
GG
JJ
G
GG1025
1041
1042
PORTLAND COMMUNITY CHURCH NATIONALWIDE HEALTH PROPERTIES INC
LEILANI J. TUCKER
R 2014-004767
KAREN L. FORD
R 2009-034579
001
002
10+00"L1" 12+64.24 P.
I
. N 144522.868E
54024.787A
Remainder 3.60 acres±
Remainder 1.54 acres±
Total
350 ft²±
Temp. Ease.-
Work Area
2627 ft²±
1510 ft²±10+85.0025.00'
13
1+06
75'
JUDY A. JUNKINS,
SOLE TRUSTEE
R 2003-048539
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
2
+61 93'+56 70'+67
70' +13
70' +73
85'
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
Temp. Ease.-
Work Area
2
199 ft²±+45
95'
75'+07 95'
75'
476 ft²±
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION
HIGHWAY
COUNTY
RIGHT OF WAY
ENGINEERING
DATE
SCALE
PURPOSE
FILE 9589-001
SEE DRAWING RW9589MSKETCH MAP
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OFTRA
NSPORTATION
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OF
S_K18823_rw_wrk_01 :: Sketches 6/22/2020
ACTIVE DRAWING
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
SUPPORT THE PROJECT DESIGN
R/W NEEDED TO BE ACQUIRED TO
THIS DRAWING SHOWS THE PROPOSED
0
FEET
50 25 50
SEC. 13, T. 2S, R. 4E, W.M.
US26: TEN EYCK RD/WOLF DR - VISTA LOOP (SANDY)
MT. HOOD
CLACKAMAS
EASEMENT AQUISITION
1" = 50'
JUNE, 2020
Page 344 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 1 of 3 File 9589002
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 1 – Permanent Easement for Slopes, Water, Gas, Electric and Communication
Service Lines, Fixtures and Facilities
A parcel of land lying in the NE¼SE¼ of Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 4 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property designated as
Parcel II, and described in that Statutory Warranty Deed to Leilani J Tucker, recorded
January 31, 2014 as Recorder’s Fee No. 2014-004767, Film Records of Clackamas
County; the said parcel being that portion of said property lying Northwesterly of a line at
right angles to the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway at Engineer’s Station “L1”
14+07.00 and included in a strip of land 95.00 feet in width, lying on the Northeasterly side
of said center line, which center line is described as follows:
Beginning at Engineer's center line Station "L1" 0+82.90, said Station being 97.15 feet
North and 1360.60 feet West of the one-quarter Section Corner common to Section 13,
Township 2 South, Range 4 East and Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, W.M.,
said corner being marked by a 3-1/4” brass disk stamped "CLACKAMAS COUNTY
SURVEYOR T2S R4E R5E 1/4 13|18 2006"; thence South 77°56'36" East 26.48 feet;
thence on a spiral curve right (the long chord of which bears South 77°11'36" East 299.98
feet) 300.00 feet; thence on a 3819.72 foot radius curve right (the long chord of which
bears South 63°12'29" East 1651.58 feet) 1664.72 feet; thence on a spiral curve right (the
long chord of which bears South 49°13'21" East 299.98 feet) 300.00 feet; thence South
48°28'21" East 1125.90 feet to Engineer’s center line Station “L1” 35+00.00.
Bearings are based on the Oregon Coordinate Reference System, Gresham - Warm
Springs Zone, NAD 83 (2011) EPOCH 2010.00.
This parcel of land contains 1,510 square feet, more or less.
Page 345 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 2 of 3 File 9589002
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 2 – Temporary Easement for Work Area (3 years or duration of Project,
whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NE¼SE¼ of Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 4 East, and
the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East W.M., Clackamas County,
Oregon and being a portion of that property designated as Parcels I and II and described
in that Statutory Warranty Deed to Leilani J Tucker, recorded January 31, 2014 as
Recorder’s Fee No. 2014-004767, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel
being that portion of said property lying Southeasterly of a line at right angles to the center
line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway at Engineer’s Station “L1” 14+07.00 and included
in a strip of land 75.00 feet in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said center line,
which center line is described in Parcel 1.
This parcel of land contains 476 square feet, more or less.
Page 346 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 3 of 3 File 9589002
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 3 - Temporary Easement for Driveway/Road Approach Reconnection (3 years
or duration of Project, whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NE¼SE¼ of Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 4 East, and
the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East W.M., Clackamas County,
Oregon and being a portion of that property designated as Parcels I and II and described
in that Statutory Warranty Deed to Leilani J Tucker, recorded January 31, 2014 as
Recorder’s Fee No. 2014-004767, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel
being that portion of said property lying Southeasterly of a line at right angles to the center
line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway at Engineer’s Station “L1” 14+56.00 and included
in a strip of land variable in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said center line, which
center line is described in Parcel 1.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 14+56.00 “L1” 14+61.00 70.00 in a straight line to 93.00
“L1” 14+61.00 “L1” 15+11.00 93.00 in a straight line to 98.00
This parcel of land contains 1,045 square feet, more or less.
Page 347 of 373
GG
GG
G G
GG
G
1014
1026
A
A
A
10401041
SE L
A
N
GE
NS
A
N
D
R
D
NATIONALWIDE HEALTH PROPERTIES INC
LEILANI J. TUCKER
R 2014-004767
001
002
003
004 15+00"L1" 12+64.24 P.I.
N 144522.868E
54024.787Temp. Ease.-
Work Area
YANEA SWANSON
R 2017-037255
Temp. Ease.-Work AreaRemainder 3.60 acres±
Remainder 1.54 acres±
Total
Remainder 13040 ft² ±
Remainder
23487 ft²±
371 ft²±
461 ft²±
726 ft²±
828 ft²±
Temp. Ease.-
Work Area
2627 ft²±1510 ft²±
1653 ft²±16+40.0025.00' 16+00.0025.00' 15+10.0025.00'
1
1
3
1
2
3
4
1
3
+06
75'
+11 98'+33 84' +42 85' +54 76' +57 66' JUDY A. JUNKINS,
Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
2
+61 93'+56 70'+24 103'Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
2
1018 ft²±
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
Temp. Ease.-
Work Area
PRESCOTT A.
VANDERHOFF
AND SYBIL K.
VANDERHOFF
R 2019-040381
+43 75' 61' 50'+12 71' 66' 50'+86 82' 2
199 ft²±+45
95'
75'+07 95'
75' 476 ft²±+02.44 68.20'+32 89' +15.13 73.05'+19 50'+27 56' 52'+79 65' 50' 227 ft²±+10 87'
61'+90 67'
62'+05 67' 61'+05 75'
56'
1045 ft²±
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION
HIGHWAY
COUNTY
RIGHT OF WAY
ENGINEERING
DATE
SCALE
PURPOSE
FILE
SEE DRAWING RW9589MSKETCH MAP
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OFTRA
NSPORTATION
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OF
S_K18823_rw_wrk_01 :: Sketches 6/22/2020
ACTIVE DRAWING
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
SUPPORT THE PROJECT DESIGN
R/W NEEDED TO BE ACQUIRED TO
THIS DRAWING SHOWS THE PROPOSED
0
FEET
50 25 50
US26: TEN EYCK RD/WOLF DR - VISTA LOOP (SANDY)
MT. HOOD
CLACKAMAS
EASEMENT AQUISITION
1" = 50'
JUNE, 2020
SEC. 13, T. 2S, R. 4E AND SEC. 18, T. 2S, R. 5E, W.M.
9589-002Page 348 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 1 of 4 File 9589003
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 1 – Fee
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Bargain and Sale Deed to Yanea Swanson, Manager, recorded June 05, 2017 as
Recorder’s Fee No. 2017-037255, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel
being that portion of said property included in a strip of land 52.00 feet in width, lying on
the Northeasterly side of the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway, which center
line is described as follows:
Beginning at Engineer's center line Station "L1" 0+82.90, said Station being 97.15 feet
North and 1360.60 feet West of the one-quarter Section Corner common to Section 13,
Township 2 South, Range 4 East and Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, W.M.,
said corner being marked by a 3-1/4” brass disk stamped "CLACKAMAS COUNTY
SURVEYOR T2S R4E R5E 1/4 13|18 2006"; thence South 77°56'36" East 26.48 feet;
thence on a spiral curve right (the long chord of which bears South 77°11'36" East 299.98
feet) 300.00 feet; thence on a 3819.72 foot radius curve right (the long chord of which
bears South 63°12'29" East 1651.58 feet) 1664.72 feet; thence on a spiral curve right (the
long chord of which bears South 49°13'21" East 299.98 feet) 300.00 feet; thence South
48°28'21" East 1125.90 feet to Engineer’s center line Station “L1” 35+00.00.
Bearings are based on the Oregon Coordinate Reference System, Gresham - Warm
Springs Zone, NAD 83 (2011) EPOCH 2010.00.
This parcel of land contains 227 square feet, more or less.
Page 349 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 2 of 4 File 9589003
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 2 – Temporary Easement for Work Area (3 years or duration of Project,
whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described that
Bargain and Sale Deed to Yanea Swanson, Manager, recorded June 05, 2017 as
Recorder’s Fee No. 2017-037255, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel
being that portion of said property included in a strip of land 56.00 feet in width, lying on
the Northeasterly side of the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway, which center
line is described in Parcel 1.
EXCEPT therefrom Parcel 1.
This parcel of land contains 461 square feet, more or less.
Page 350 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 3 of 4 File 9589003
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 3 - Temporary Easement for Driveway/Road Approach Reconnection (3 years
or duration of Project, whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Bargain and Sale Deed to Yanea Swanson, Manager, recorded June 05, 2017 as
Recorder’s Fee No. 2017-037255, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel
being that portion of said property lying Northwesterly of a line at right angles to the center
line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway at Engineer’s Station “L1” 15+19.00 and included
in a strip of land variable in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said center line, which
center line is described in Parcel 1.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 14+61.00 “L1” 15+11.00 93.00 in a straight line to 98.00
“L1” 15+11.00 “L1” 15+19.00 98.00 in a straight line to 50.00
EXCEPT therefrom that portion of said property lying Southerly of the following described
line.
Beginning at point of the Westerly line of said Section 18 at a point opposite and 68.20 feet
Northeasterly of Engineer’s Station 15+02.44 on the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood
Highway; thence in a straight line to a point opposite and 73.05 feet Northeasterly of
Engineer’s Station 15+15.13.
The center line of the Mt. Hood Highway is described in Parcel 1.
This parcel of land contains 371 square feet, more or less.
Page 351 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 4 of 4 File 9589003
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 4 - Temporary Easement for Driveway/Road Approach Reconnection (3 years
or duration of Project, whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Special Warranty Deed – Statutory Form to YLS Homes, LLC, recorded December 30,
2016 as Recorder’s Fee No. 2016-090129, Film Records of Clackamas County, and also
being a portion of that property described in that Bargain and Sale Deed to Yanea
Swanson, Manager, recorded June 05, 2017 as Recorder’s Fee No. 2017-037255, Film
Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel being that portion of said property lying
Southeasterly of a line at right angles to the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway
at Engineer’s Station “L1” 15+79.00 and included in a strip of land variable in width, lying
on the Northeasterly side of said center line, which center line is described in Parcel 1.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 15+79.00 “L1” 15+86.00 65.00 in a straight line to 82.00
“L1” 15+86.00 “L1” 16+24.00 82.00 in a straight line to 103.00
EXCEPT therefrom Parcels 1.
This parcel of land contains 1,653 square feet, more or less.
Page 352 of 373
GG
GG
G G
GG
G
1014
1026
A A
A
A
10401041
GARY DELCO
R 2001-103388
SE L
A
N
GE
NS
A
N
D
R
D
NATIONALWIDE HEALTH PROPERTIES INC
LEILANI J. TUCKER
R 2014-004767
002
003
004 005 15+00MT HOOD HIGHWAY (US26)"L1" 12+64.24 P.
I
. N 144522.868Temp. Ease.-
Work Area
YANEA SWANSON
R 2017-037255
Temp. Ease.-Work AreaRemainder 1.54 acres±
Total
Remainder 13040 ft² ±
Remainder
23487 ft²±
Remainder 41677 ft²±
1029
371 ft²±
461 ft²±
726 ft²±
828 ft²±
Temp. Ease.-
2627 ft²±
1510 ft²±
1653 ft²±12+93.0050.00'
16+40.0025.00' 17+20.0025.00' 16+00.0025.00' 15+10.0025.00'
1
1
3
1
2
3
4
1
3
1
3
+11 98'+33 84' +42 85' +54 76' +57 66' Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
2
+61 93'+56 70'+24 103'
Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
2 +43 86' 1491 ft²±
Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
1018 ft²±
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
Temp. Ease.-
Work Area
VANDERHOFF
AND SYBIL K.
VANDERHOFF
R 2019-040381
+43 75' 61' 50'+12 71' 66' 50'+86 82' 199 ft²±+45
95'
75'+07 95'
75'
476 ft²±+02.44 68.20'+32 89' +60 50'+15.13 73.05'+19 50'+27 56' 52'+79 65'
50' 227 ft²±+10 87' 61'+90 67' 62'+05 67' 61'+05 75' 56'
1045 ft²±
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION
HIGHWAY
COUNTY
RIGHT OF WAY
ENGINEERING
DATE
SCALE
PURPOSE
FILE
SEE DRAWING RW9589MSKETCH MAP
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OFTRA
NSPORTATION
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OF
S_K18823_rw_wrk_01 :: Sketches 6/22/2020
ACTIVE DRAWING
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
SUPPORT THE PROJECT DESIGN
R/W NEEDED TO BE ACQUIRED TO
THIS DRAWING SHOWS THE PROPOSED
0
FEET
50 25 50
US26: TEN EYCK RD/WOLF DR - VISTA LOOP (SANDY)
MT. HOOD
CLACKAMAS
1" = 50'
JUNE, 2020
SEC. 18, T. 2S, R. 5E, W.M.
9589-003
FEE AND EASEMENT AQUISITIONPage 353 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 1 of 3 File 9589004
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 1 – Permanent Easement for Slopes, Water, Gas, Electric and Communication
Service Lines, Fixtures and Facilities
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Statutory Warranty Deed to Prescott A. Vanderhoff and Sybil K Vanderhoff, recorded July
12, 2019 as Recorder’s Fee No. 2019-040381, Film Records of Clackamas County; the
said parcel being that portion of said property included in a strip of land 61.00 feet in width,
lying on the Northeasterly side of the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway, which
center line is described as follows:
Beginning at Engineer's center line Station "L1" 0+82.90, said Station being 97.15 feet
North and 1360.60 feet West of the one-quarter Section Corner common to Section 13,
Township 2 South, Range 4 East and Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, W.M.,
said corner being marked by a 3-1/4” brass disk stamped "CLACKAMAS COUNTY
SURVEYOR T2S R4E R5E 1/4 13|18 2006"; thence South 77°56'36" East 26.48 feet;
thence on a spiral curve right (the long chord of which bears South 77°11'36" East 299.98
feet) 300.00 feet; thence on a 3819.72 foot radius curve right (the long chord of which
bears South 63°12'29" East 1651.58 feet) 1664.72 feet; thence on a spiral curve right (the
long chord of which bears South 49°13'21" East 299.98 feet) 300.00 feet; thence South
48°28'21" East 1125.90 feet to Engineer’s center line Station “L1” 35+00.00.
Bearings are based on the Oregon Coordinate Reference System, Gresham - Warm
Springs Zone, NAD 83 (2011) EPOCH 2010.00.
This parcel of land contains 828 square feet, more or less.
Page 354 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 2 of 3 File 9589004
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 2 – Temporary Easement for Work Area (3 years or duration of Project,
whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Statutory Warranty Deed to Prescott A. Vanderhoff and Sybil K Vanderhoff, recorded July
12, 2019 as Recorder’s Fee No. 2019-040381, Film Records of Clackamas County; the
said parcel being that portion of said property lying Southeasterly of a line at right angles to
the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway at Engineer’s Station “L1” 16+43.00 and
included in a strip of land variable in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said center
line, which center line is described in Parcel 1.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 16+43.00 “L1” 16+54.00 75.00 in a straight line to 76.00
“L1” 16+54.00
“L1” 16+57.00
“L1” 16+57.00
“L1” 17+05.00
76.00 in a straight line to 66.00
66.00
This parcel of land contains 1,018 square feet, more or less.
Page 355 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 3 of 3 File 9589004
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 3 - Temporary Easement for Driveway/Road Approach Reconnection (3 years
or duration of Project, whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Statutory Warranty Deed to Prescott A. Vanderhoff and Sybil K Vanderhoff, recorded July
12, 2019 as Recorder’s Fee No. 2019-040381, Film Records of Clackamas County; the
said parcel being that portion of said property lying Northwesterly of a line at right angles to
the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway at Engineer’s Station “L1” 16+43.00 and
included in a strip of land variable in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said center
line, which center line is described in Parcel 1.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 16+10.00 “L1” 16+32.00 87.00 in a straight line to 89.00
“L1” 16+32.00
“L1” 16+33.00
“L1” 16+42.00
“L1” 16+33.00
“L1” 16+42.00
“L1” 16+43.00
89.00 in a straight line to 84.00
84.00 in a straight line to 85.00
85.00 in a straight line to 75.00
This parcel of land contains 726 square feet, more or less.
Page 356 of 373
GG
GG
G G
GG
G
1026
1027
A
A
A
A
1040GARY DELCO
R 2001-103388
SE L
A
N
GE
NS
A
N
D
R
D
002
003
004 005 15+00MT HOOD HIGHWAY (US26)
Temp. Ease.-
Work Area
YANEA SWANSON
R 2017-037255
Temp. Ease.-Work AreaTemp. Ease.-Work AreaRemainder 2.25 acres±
Remainder 13040 ft² ±
Remainder
23487 ft²±
Remainder 41677 ft²±
1029
371 ft²±
461 ft²±
726 ft²±
828 ft²±
1653 ft²±
1258 ft²±16+40.0025.00' 17+20.0025.00' 16+00.0025.00' 15+10.0025.00'
3
1
2
3
4
1
3
2
1
1
3
+11 98'+33 84' +42 85' +54 76' +57 66' +97 67' 63'+15 67' 63' 62'+46 70' 65' 2
+61 93'+56 70'+24 103'Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
2 +43 86' 1491 ft²±
Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
1018 ft²±2053 ft²±Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
Temp. Ease.-
Work Area 2
PRESCOTT A.
VANDERHOFF
AND SYBIL K.
VANDERHOFF
R 2019-040381
+43 75' 61' 50'+12 71' 66' 50'
MARGARET BROMLEY
R 1990-01818
PARCELS II AND III
+86 82' 476 ft²±
Temp. Ease.-
Work Area
+38 70' +74 70'697 ft²±+02.44 68.20'+32 89' +60 50'+15.13 73.05'+19 50'+27 56' 52'+79 65' 50' 227 ft²±+10 87'
61'+90 67'
62'+05 67' 61'+05 75'
56'
1045 ft²±
1207 ft²±
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION
HIGHWAY
COUNTY
RIGHT OF WAY
ENGINEERING
DATE
SCALE
PURPOSE
FILE
SEE DRAWING RW9589MSKETCH MAP
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OFTRA
NSPORTATION
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OF
S_K18823_rw_wrk_01 :: Sketches 6/22/2020
ACTIVE DRAWING
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
SUPPORT THE PROJECT DESIGN
R/W NEEDED TO BE ACQUIRED TO
THIS DRAWING SHOWS THE PROPOSED
0
FEET
50 25 50
US26: TEN EYCK RD/WOLF DR - VISTA LOOP (SANDY)
MT. HOOD
CLACKAMAS
EASEMENT AQUISITION
1" = 50'
JUNE, 2020
SEC. 18, T. 2S, R. 5E, W.M.
9589-004Page 357 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 1 of 3 File 9589005
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 1 – Permanent Easement for Slopes, Water, Gas, Electric and Communication
Service Lines, Fixtures and Facilities
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Statutory Warranty Deed to Gary Delco, recorded December 07, 2001 as Recorder’s Fee
No. 2001-103388, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel being that portion of
said property included in a strip of land variable in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of
the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway, which center line is described as
follows:
Beginning at Engineer's center line Station "L1" 0+82.90, said Station being 97.15 feet
North and 1360.60 feet West of the one-quarter Section Corner common to Section 13,
Township 2 South, Range 4 East and Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, W.M.,
said corner being marked by a 3-1/4” brass disk stamped "CLACKAMAS COUNTY
SURVEYOR T2S R4E R5E 1/4 13|18 2006"; thence South 77°56'36" East 26.48 feet;
thence on a spiral curve right (the long chord of which bears South 77°11'36" East 299.98
feet) 300.00 feet; thence on a 3819.72 foot radius curve right (the long chord of which
bears South 63°12'29" East 1651.58 feet) 1664.72 feet; thence on a spiral curve right (the
long chord of which bears South 49°13'21" East 299.98 feet) 300.00 feet; thence South
48°28'21" East 1125.90 feet to Engineer’s center line Station “L1” 35+00.00.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 16+90.00 “L1” 18+15.00 62.00
“L1” 18+15.00 “L1” 18+74.00 62.00 in a straight line to 70.00
Bearings are based on the Oregon Coordinate Reference System, Gresham - Warm
Springs Zone, NAD 83 (2011) EPOCH 2010.00.
This parcel of land contains 1,491 square feet, more or less.
Page 358 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 2 of 3 File 9589005
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 2 – Temporary Easement for Work Area (3 years or duration of Project,
whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Statutory Warranty Deed to Gary Delco, recorded December 07, 2001 as Recorder’s Fee
No. 2001-103388, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel being that portion of
said property included in a strip of land variable in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of
the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway, which center line is described in Parcel
1.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 16+90.00 “L1” 17+97.00 67.00
“L1” 17+97.00
“L1” 18+15.00
“L1” 18+15.00
“L1” 18+38.00
63.00
67.00 in a straight line to 70.00
This parcel of land contains 2,053 square feet, more or less.
Page 359 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 3 of 3 File 9589005
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 3 - Temporary Easement for Driveway/Road Approach Reconnection (3 years
or duration of Project, whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Statutory Warranty Deed to Gary Delco, recorded December 07, 2001 as Recorder’s Fee
No. 2001-103388, Film Records of Clackamas County, Film Records of Clackamas
County; the said parcel being that portion of said property lying between lines at right
angles to the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway at Engineer’s Stations “L1”
17+12.00 and “L1” 17+60.00 and included in a strip of land variable in width, lying on the
Northeasterly side of said center line, which center line is described in Parcel 1.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 17+12.00 “L1” 17+43.00 71.00 in a straight line to 86.00
L1” 17+43.00 “L1” 17+60.00 86.00 in a straight line to 50.00
This parcel of land contains 1,207 square feet, more or less.
Page 360 of 373
GG
G
GG
G
1014
1026
1027
A A
A
A
1040GARY DELCO
R 2001-103388
SE L
A
N
GE
NS
A
N
D
R
D
003
004 005 15+00 20+00MT HOOD HIGHWAY (US26)
Temp. Ease.-
Work Area
YANEA SWANSON
R 2017-037255
Temp. Ease.-Work AreaTemp. Ease.-Work AreaTemp. Ease.-
Work Area
Remainder 2.25 acres±
Remainder 13040 ft² ±
Remainder
23487 ft²±
Remainder 41677 ft²±
1029
371 ft²±
461 ft²±
726 ft²±
828 ft²±
1653 ft²±
1258 ft²±16+40.0025.00' 17+20.0025.00' 16+00.0025.00' 15+10.0025.00'
1
2
3
4
1
3
2
1
3
4
1
3
+11 98'+33 84' +42 85' +54 76' +57 66' +97 67' 63'+15 67' 63' 62'+46 70' 65' +24 60' +24 103'
Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
2 +43 86' 1491 ft²±
Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
1018 ft²±2053 ft²±Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
006
2
PRESCOTT A.
VANDERHOFF
AND SYBIL K.
VANDERHOFF
R 2019-040381
+43 75' 61' 50'+12 71' 66' 50'MARGARET BROMLEY
R 1990-01818
PARCELS II AND III
+86 82' Temp. Ease.-
Work Area
+38 70' +74 70'697 ft²±
657 ft²±+02.44 68.20'+32 89' +60 50'+15.13 73.05'+19 50'+27 56' 52'+79 65'
50' 227 ft²±+10 87' 61'+90 67' 62'+05 67' 61'+05 75' 56'
1115 ft²±
1207 ft²±
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION
HIGHWAY
COUNTY
RIGHT OF WAY
ENGINEERING
DATE
SCALE
PURPOSE
FILE
SEE DRAWING RW9589MSKETCH MAP
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OFTRA
NSPORTATION
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OF
S_K18823_rw_wrk_01 :: Sketches 6/24/2020
ACTIVE DRAWING
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
SUPPORT THE PROJECT DESIGN
R/W NEEDED TO BE ACQUIRED TO
THIS DRAWING SHOWS THE PROPOSED
0
FEET
50 25 50
US26: TEN EYCK RD/WOLF DR - VISTA LOOP (SANDY)
MT. HOOD
CLACKAMAS
EASEMENT AQUISITION
1" = 50'
JUNE, 2020
SEC. 18, T. 2S, R. 5E, W.M.
9589-005Page 361 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 1 of 4 File 9589006
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 1 – Permanent Easement for Slopes, Water, Gas, Electric and Communication
Service Lines, Fixtures and Facilities
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property designated as
Parcels II and III and described in that Warranty Deed – Statutory Form to John P.
Bromley Jr. and Margaret Bromley, recorded January 12, 1990 as Recorder’s Fee No. 90-
01818, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel being that portion of said
property lying Northwesterly of a line at right angles to the center line of the relocated Mt.
Hood Highway at Engineer’s Station “L1” 19+46.00 and included in a strip of land variable
in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said center line, which center line is described
as follows:
Beginning at Engineer's center line Station "L1" 0+82.90, said Station being 97.15 feet
North and 1360.60 feet West of the one-quarter Section Corner common to Section 13,
Township 2 South, Range 4 East and Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, W.M.,
said corner being marked by a 3-1/4” brass disk stamped "CLACKAMAS COUNTY
SURVEYOR T2S R4E R5E 1/4 13|18 2006"; thence South 77°56'36" East 26.48 feet;
thence on a spiral curve right (the long chord of which bears South 77°11'36" East 299.98
feet) 300.00 feet; thence on a 3819.72 foot radius curve right (the long chord of which
bears South 63°12'29" East 1651.58 feet) 1664.72 feet; thence on a spiral curve right (the
long chord of which bears South 49°13'21" East 299.98 feet) 300.00 feet; thence South
48°28'21" East 1125.90 feet to Engineer’s center line Station “L1” 35+00.00.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 18+15.00 “L1” 18+74.00 62.00 in a straight line to 70.00
“L1” 18+74.00 “L1” 19+46.00 70.00
Bearings are based on the Oregon Coordinate Reference System, Gresham - Warm
Springs Zone, NAD 83 (2011) EPOCH 2010.00.
This parcel of land contains 1,258 square feet, more or less.
Page 362 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 2 of 4 File 9589006
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 2 – Temporary Easement for Work Area (3 years or duration of Project,
whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property designated as
Parcels II and III and described in that Warranty Deed – Statutory Form to John P.
Bromley Jr. and Margaret Bromley, recorded January 12, 1990 as Recorder’s Fee No. 90-
01818, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel being that portion of said
property lying Northwesterly of a line at right angles to the center line of the relocated Mt.
Hood Highway at Engineer’s Station “L1” 18+74.00 and included in a strip of land variable
in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said center line, which center line is described in
Parcel 1.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 18+15.00 “L1” 18+38.00 67.00 in a straight line to 70.00
“L1” 18+38.00 “L1” 18+74,00 70.00
This parcel of land contains 697 square feet, more or less.
Page 363 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 3 of 4 File 9589006
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 3 – Temporary Easement for Work Area (3 years or duration of Project,
whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property designated as
Parcels II and III and described in that Warranty Deed – Statutory Form to John P.
Bromley Jr. and Margaret Bromley, recorded January 12, 1990 as Recorder’s Fee No. 90-
01818, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel being that portion of said
property lying between lines at right angles to the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood
Highway at Engineer’s Stations “L1” 19+46.00 and “L1” 20+77.00, and included in a strip
of land variable in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said center line, which center
line is described in Parcel 1.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 19+46.00 “L1” 20+73.49 65.00
“L1” 20+73.49 “L1” 20+77.00 65.00 in a straight line to 60.00
This parcel of land contains 657 square feet, more or less.
Page 364 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 4 of 4 File 9589006
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 4 - Temporary Easement for Driveway/Road Approach Reconnection (3 years
or duration of Project, whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property designated as
Parcels II and III and described in that Warranty Deed – Statutory Form to John P.
Bromley Jr. and Margaret Bromley, recorded January 12, 1990 as Recorder’s Fee No. 90-
01818, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel being that portion of said
property lying between lines at right angles to the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood
Highway at Engineer’s Stations “L1” 20+24.00 and “L1” 20+77.00 and included in a strip of
land variable in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said center line, which center line
is described in Parcel 1.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 20+24.00 “L1” 20+34.00 60.00 in a straight line to 83.00
“L1” 20+34.00
“L1” 20+52.00
“L1” 20+52.00
“L1” 20+77.00
83.00 in a straight line to 96.00
96.00 in a straight line to 60.00
This parcel of land contains 1,115 square feet, more or less.
Page 365 of 373
J
1027
A A
GARY DELCO
R 2001-103388
004 005 20+00MT HOOD HIGHWAY (US26)Temp. Ease.-Work AreaTemp. Ease.-Work AreaTemp. Ease.-
Work Area
Remainder 2.25 acres±
Remainder 41677 ft²±
1029828 ft²±
1258 ft²±20+50.0025.00' 17+20.0025.00' 2
1
3
4
1
3
+57 66' +97 67' 63'+15 67' 63' 62'+46 70' 65' +24 60' +34 83' +52 96' +77 60' Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Reconnection
+43 86' 1491 ft²±
Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
1018 ft²±2053 ft²±Perm. Ease. -
Slopes and Water,
Gas. Electric and
Communication
Service Lines, Fictures
and Facilities
Temp. Ease.-
Driveway/Road
Approach
Reconnection
+73.49 65' 006
2+12 71' 66' 50'MARGARET BROMLEY
R 1990-01818
PARCELS II AND III
Temp. Ease.-
Work Area
+38 70' +74 70'697 ft²±
657 ft²±+60 50'+90 67' 62'+05 67' 61'1115 ft²±
1207 ft²±
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION
HIGHWAY
COUNTY
RIGHT OF WAY
ENGINEERING
DATE
SCALE
PURPOSE
FILE
SEE DRAWING RW9589MSKETCH MAP
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OFTRA
NSPORTATION
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OF
S_K18823_rw_wrk_01 :: Sketches 6/23/2020
ACTIVE DRAWING
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
SUPPORT THE PROJECT DESIGN
R/W NEEDED TO BE ACQUIRED TO
THIS DRAWING SHOWS THE PROPOSED
0
FEET
50 25 50
US26: TEN EYCK RD/WOLF DR - VISTA LOOP (SANDY)
MT. HOOD
CLACKAMAS
EASEMENT AQUISITION
1" = 50'
JUNE, 2020
SEC. 18, T. 2S, R. 5E, W.M.
9589-006Page 366 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 1 of 2 File 9589007
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 1 - Temporary Easement for Work Area (3 years or duration of Project,
whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Warranty Deed to Jo Ann C. Allen, Trustee of the Allen Family Revocable Living Trust
dated February 20, 2002, recorded June 20, 2003 as Recorder’s Fee No. 2003-078376,
Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel being that portion of said property
lying between lines at right angles to the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway at
Engineer’s Stations “L1” 23+03.00 and “L1” 25+40.00 and included in a strip of land
variable in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said center line, which center line is
described as follows:
Beginning at Engineer's center line Station "L1" 0+82.90, said Station being 97.15 feet
North and 1360.60 feet West of the one-quarter Section Corner common to Section 13,
Township 2 South, Range 4 East and Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, W.M.,
said corner being marked by a 3-1/4” brass disk stamped "CLACKAMAS COUNTY
SURVEYOR T2S R4E R5E 1/4 13|18 2006"; thence South 77°56'36" East 26.48 feet;
thence on a spiral curve right (the long chord of which bears South 77°11'36" East 299.98
feet) 300.00 feet; thence on a 3819.72 foot radius curve right (the long chord of which
bears South 63°12'29" East 1651.58 feet) 1664.72 feet; thence on a spiral curve right (the
long chord of which bears South 49°13'21" East 299.98 feet) 300.00 feet; thence South
48°28'21" East 1125.90 feet to Engineer’s center line Station “L1” 35+00.00.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 23+03.00 “L1” 25+40.00 68.05 in a straight line to 68.00
Bearings are based on the Oregon Coordinate Reference System, Gresham - Warm
Springs Zone, NAD 83 (2011) EPOCH 2010.00.
This parcel of land contains 1,669 square feet, more or less.
Page 367 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 2 of 2 File 9589007
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Parcel 2 - Temporary Easement for Driveway/Road Approach Reconnection (3 years
or duration of Project, whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Warranty Deed to Jo Ann C. Allen, Trustee of the Allen Family Revocable Living Trust
dated February 20, 2002, recorded June 20, 2003 as Recorder’s Fee No. 2003-078376,
Film Records of Clackamas County; the said parcel being that portion of said property
lying between lines at right angles to the center line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway at
Engineer’s Stations “L1” 23+03.00 and “L1” 23+40.00 and included in a strip of land
variable in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said center line, which center line is
described in Parcel 1.
The width in feet of said strip of land is as follows:
Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line
“L1” 23+03.00 “L1” 23+40.00 94.00 in a straight line to 88.00
This parcel of land contains 1,081 square feet, more or less.
Page 368 of 373
10031002
1004
1028
1030
A
RUBY ELIASON
R 1979-8439 "L1" 23+74.10 P.T. "L1" 20+74.10 P.C.S. TIMOTHY & ANITA M. PETERSON
R 2016-053782
007 25+00Remainder 3.24 acres±
Temp. Ease.-Work Area
1669 ft²±23+00.0025.00' 1
2
Temp. Ease.- Driveway/RoadApproach
Reconnection
+40 68' +40 88'+03 94' 68.05JO ANN C. ALLEN, TRUSTEER 2003-078376
1081 ft²±
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION
HIGHWAY
COUNTY
RIGHT OF WAY
ENGINEERING
DATE
SCALE
PURPOSE
FILE
SEE DRAWING RW9589MSKETCH MAP
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OFTRA
NSPORTATION
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OF
S_K18823_rw_wrk_01 :: Sketches 6/22/2020
ACTIVE DRAWING
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
SUPPORT THE PROJECT DESIGN
R/W NEEDED TO BE ACQUIRED TO
THIS DRAWING SHOWS THE PROPOSED
0
FEET
50 25 50
US26: TEN EYCK RD/WOLF DR - VISTA LOOP (SANDY)
MT. HOOD
CLACKAMAS
EASEMENT AQUISITION
1" = 50'
JUNE, 2020
SEC. 18, T. 2S, R. 5E, W.M.
9589-007
MT HOOD HIGHWAY (US26)Page 369 of 373
EXHIBIT A - Page 1 of 1 File 9589008
Drawing RW9589M
06/22/2020
Temporary Easement for Driveway/Road Approach Reconnection (3 years or
duration of Project, whichever is sooner)
A parcel of land lying in the NW¼SW¼of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East,
W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that
Statutory Warranty Deed to Douglass D. Lindsay and Kristen K. Lindsay, recorded August
28, 1998 as Recorder’s Fee No. 98-080337, Film Records of Clackamas County; the said
parcel being that portion of said property lying between lines at right angles to the center
line of the relocated Mt. Hood Highway at Engineer’s Stations “L1” 28+47.00 and “L1”
28+74.00 and included in a strip of land 81.00 feet in width, lying on the Northeasterly side
of said center line, which center line is described as follows:
Beginning at Engineer's center line Station "L1" 0+82.90, said Station being 97.15 feet
North and 1360.60 feet West of the one-quarter Section Corner common to Section 13,
Township 2 South, Range 4 East and Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, W.M.,
said corner being marked by a 3-1/4” brass disk stamped "CLACKAMAS COUNTY
SURVEYOR T2S R4E R5E 1/4 13|18 2006"; thence South 77°56'36" East 26.48 feet;
thence on a spiral curve right (the long chord of which bears South 77°11'36" East 299.98
feet) 300.00 feet; thence on a 3819.72 foot radius curve right (the long chord of which
bears South 63°12'29" East 1651.58 feet) 1664.72 feet; thence on a spiral curve right (the
long chord of which bears South 49°13'21" East 299.98 feet) 300.00 feet; thence South
48°28'21" East 1125.90 feet to Engineer’s center line Station “L1” 35+00.00.
Bearings are based on the Oregon Coordinate Reference System, Gresham - Warm
Springs Zone, NAD 83 (2011) EPOCH 2010.00.
This parcel of land contains 297 square feet, more or less.
Page 370 of 373
1031
1034
A
A
ITSUO HOSAKAR 2007-054344
TIMOTHY & ANITA M. PETERSON
R 2016-053782
10461047
100 101 102
103
104
105
106 107
TRACT 'D'
008
Remainder 37688 ft²±
297 ft²±30+80.0025.00' 28+50.0025.00' 27+86.0025.00' +74 81' +47 81' 30+00Temp. Ease.- Driveway/RoadApproach
Reconnection
SUSAN DUBLEY, TRUSTEER 2017-067977
DOUGLASS D. LINDSAYAND KRISTEN K. LINDSAYR 98-080337
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION
HIGHWAY
COUNTY
RIGHT OF WAY
ENGINEERING
DATE
SCALE
PURPOSE
FILE
SEE DRAWING RW9589MSKETCH MAP
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OFTRA
NSPORTATION
OREGON DEPARTMEN
T OF
S_K18823_rw_wrk_01 :: Sketches 6/22/2020
ACTIVE DRAWING
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
SUPPORT THE PROJECT DESIGN
R/W NEEDED TO BE ACQUIRED TO
THIS DRAWING SHOWS THE PROPOSED
0
FEET
50 25 50
US26: TEN EYCK RD/WOLF DR - VISTA LOOP (SANDY)
MT. HOOD
CLACKAMAS
EASEMENT AQUISITION
1" = 50'
JUNE, 2020
SEC. 18, T. 2S, R. 5E, W.M.
9589-008
MT HOOD HIGHWAY (US26)Page 371 of 373
Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 6, 2020
From David Snider, Economic Development Manager
SUBJECT: Childcare grant program - Tenant Improvement
Background:
This proposal for a childcare business incentive grant as a response to an identified lack
of childcare businesses in our region was originally presented to Council at the May
18th City Council meeting. Staff has researched ideas based on the comments given
by Council at that meeting and has modified our proposal based on that feedback.
Infrastructure Grant:
As suggested by several Council members at the 5/18 meeting, staff researched the
possibility of adding childcare businesses as an additional target for the existing Tenant
Improvement Program and found this to be an elegant solution. Staff therefore
proposes modifying the Tenant Improvement Program to include childcare businesses
as a valid target for the program.
• This solution requires no new funding streams to be identified – it simply adds
another type of business to an already existing incentive program.
• Funding for this program is stable and will not be an issue unless we receive
multiple large TI grant applications outside of the urban renewal district between
now and the end of the current biennium. Staff believes this is unlikely.
• The only modifications needed to the existing program would be to add the new
targeted industry to the existing program materials and to add an additional
question to the application designating type of business – these changes could
be completed within one business day.
As a reminder, the following items would be reimbursable for childcare businesses
through the Tenant Improvement Program if modified as proposed, up to a maximum of
$30,000 in reimbursement dollars:
Interior
Any ADA or seismic improvements
Adding a fully ADA compliant restroom or modifying an existing restroom for ADA
compliance with state childcare business regulations
Constructing, demolishing or moving interior walls
Plumbing and plumbing fixtures
Flooring
Interior lighting
Page 372 of 373
Any electrical upgrades (adding outlets, circuits, etc.)
Exterior
Any ADA improvements (building entries, ADA pathways)
Fencing and play equipment (including installation) for required outdoor play
areas
The bolded item in the above list is reimbursable for childcare businesses only – this is
an item that is required by the State of Oregon for this specific classification of business.
The items unique to restaurants (grease interceptors, kitchen fire suppression and
commercial kitchen hoods) would remain reimbursable for restaurants only.
Marketing Grant:
The marketing grant piece of our proposal seemed to be met with mixed reviews at the
May 18th meeting. Because of this response, staff did not invest any time developing
this piece of our proposal further. If this concept is something that Council would like
staff to pursue, please provide us with clearer direction on this topic.
Additional Suggested Program Change:
Staff also proposes a second, minor change to the Tenant Improvement Program. The
purpose of this program is to incentivize its target industries to make improvements to
their spaces, and these improvements may include upgrading utilities inside buildings
(water, sewer, electrical, natural gas, etc.). The City of Sandy has also been a strong
proponent of building out SandyNet’s gigabit fiber network within our city limits and has
rightly recognized high speed internet availability as an important utility grade service
and a building block for our local economy.
To help further these general goals, staff would like to propose adding SandyNet high
speed internet installation costs as a reimbursable expense to this program, for both
restaurants and childcare businesses. The small added expense to the program for
installation costs and equipment would be quickly offset by future monthly service
charges and would also result in a small increase in SandyNet’s overall commercial
take rate.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the following actions:
• Approval of the addition of childcare businesses to the Tenant Improvement
Program.
• Approval of addition of SandyNet Fiber installation as a reimbursable expense for
the Tenant Improvement Program.
• Provide additional direction to staff with regard to the development of the
proposed marketing piece of this program.
Page 373 of 373