Fill - Free fillable 00 01.05.2021 City Council Mtg. Packet (City of Sherwood) PDF form

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

ACKET

FOR

Tuesday, January 5, 2021

Sherwood City Hall

22560 SW Pine Street

Sherwood, Oregon

6:00 pm City Council Work Session

:00 pm City Council Regular Meeting

Pursuant to House Bill 4212 (2020), these meetings will be conducted electronically and

will be live streamed at https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofSherwood

City Council Agenda

January 5, 2021

Page 1 of 2

6:00 PM WORK SESSION

1. Parks Master Plan Review

(Kristen Switzer, Community Services Director)

2. Tobacco Retail Licensing Proposal – Washington County

(Joe Gall, City Manager)

7:00 PM REGULAR SESSION

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

5. CONSENT AGENDA

A. Approval of December 15, 2020 City Council meeting Minutes (Sylvia Murphy, City Recorder)

B. Resolution 2021-001 Amending the Employment Contract between the City Attorney and the

City of Sherwood (Joe Gall, City Manager)

C. Resolution 2021-002 Authorizing the Issuance of Gift Certificates to Members of the City’s

Boards and Commissions (Joe Gall, City Manager)

D. Resolution 2021-003 Amending the Employment Contract between the City Manager and the

City of Sherwood (Josh Soper, City Attorney)

E. Resolution 2021-004 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Intergovernmental

Agreement (IGA) with Metro to Accept a 2040 Planning and Development Grant to Fund the

Sherwood West Re-look Project (Erika Palmer, Planning Manager)

6. CITIZEN COMMENTS

Pursuant to House Bill 4212 (2020), citizen comments and testimony for public hearings must be submitted in writing to

CityRecorder@Sherwoodoregon.gov

. To be included in the record for this meeting, the email must clearly state either (1) that it

is intended as a citizen comment for this meeting or (2) if it is intended as testimony for a public hearing, the specific public

hearing topic for which it is intended, and in either case must be received at least 24 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting

time. Per Council Rules Ch. 2 Section (V)(D)(5), Citizen Comments, “Speakers shall identify themselves by their names and by

their city of residence.” Anonymous comments will not be accepted into the meeting record.

AGENDA

SHERWOOD CITY COUNCIL

January 5, 2021

6:00 pm City Council Work Session

7:00 pm Regular City Council Meeting

Pursuant to House Bill 4212 (2020), this meeting

will be conducted electronically and will be

live streamed at

https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofSherwood

City Council Agenda

January 5, 2021

Page 2 of 2

7. PRESENTATIONS

A. Swearing In of Elected Officials (Joe Gall, City Manager)

8. NEW BUSINESS

A. Selection of City Council President (Joe Gall, City Manager)

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Ordinance 2020-008, Approving annexation of 10.90 acres to the City of Sherwood and 10.50

acres to Clean Water Services within the Tonquin Employment Area, comprised of one Tax

Lot and the adjacent SW Oregon Street and SW Tonquin Road right-of-way

(First Reading) (Eric Rutledge, Associate Planner)

10. CITY MANAGER REPORT

11. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS

12. ADJOURN

How to Find out What's on the Council Schedule: City Council meeting materials and agenda are posted to the City web page at www.sherwoodoregon.gov

, generally

by the Thursday prior to a Council meeting. When possible, Council agendas are also posted at the Sherwood Library/City Hall and the Sherwood Post Office.

To Schedule a Presentation to the Council: If you would like to schedule a presentation to the City Council, please submit your name, phone number, the subject of

your presentation and the date you wish to appear to the City Recorder, 503-625-4246 or MurphyS@sherwoodoregon.gov

. If you require an ADA accommodation for this

public meeting, please contact the City Recorder’s Office at (503) 625-4246 or MurphyS@sherwoodoregon.gov at least 48 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting

time.

DRAFT

City Council Minutes

December 15, 2020

Page 1 of 13

SHERWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

22560 SW Pine St., Sherwood, Or

Pursuant to House Bill 4212 (2020), this meeting will be conducted electronically and will be live streamed at

https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofSherwood

December 15, 2020

WORK SESSION

1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mays called the work session to order at 6:02 pm.

2. COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Keith Mays, Council President Tim Rosener, Councilors Doug Scott, Renee

Brouse, Kim Young, Sean Garland, and Russell Griffin.

3. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Joe Gall, City Attorney Josh Soper, IT Director Brad Crawford, Community

Development Director Julia Hajduk, Police Chief Jeff Groth, Finance Director David Bodway, Public Works

Director Craig Sheldon, Planning Manager Erika Palmer, and City Recorder Sylvia Murphy.

GUESTS: TriMet Service Planner Brenda Martin and Jim Rose from the Sherwood School District.

4. TOPICS

A. TriMet Updates

Community Development Director Hajduk introduced TriMet Service Planner Brenda Martin to discuss

TriMet’s process for route changes. Ms. Martin presented the “TriMet in Sherwood” PowerPoint presentation

(see record, Exhibit A) and reported that she sat on the Washington County Coordinating Committee and

worked with cities on the westside to coordinate service and transit. She reported that TriMet had 82 bus

lines (32 in Washington County), 15 Frequent Service bus lines, 5 light rail lines, WES commuter rail, and

LIFT paratransit service. She stated that TriMet considered itself a community job connector service and

stated that the shuttle programs were not run by TriMet but were funded through some of the funding that

came into TriMet from the state. She reviewed the fixed route service planning guidelines on page 5 of the

presentation and explained that the five main considerations were: demand, connections, growth, equity,

and productivity. She added that cost and operations considerations needed to be considered. She reported

that TriMet evaluated productivity by calculating cost divided by demand, and lines that typically carried less

riders cost the same as lines that were more popular, and that it was easier to spread the cost of operations

on lines that carried more people. She recapped that adding transit service was driven by density, diversity

of uses, destinations, design of built environment, and the pedestrian environment. She reported that TriMet

had two funding sources for improved transit service and explained that an Employer Payroll Tax which had

a 10-year phase-in and provided roughly $5 million in new revenue a year. House Bill 2017, the Keep Oregon

Moving Act, which added an employee payroll tax which had a 5-year phase-in and provided roughly $110-

120 million in funding a year. She commented that the COVID pandemic had impacted both funding sources.

DRAFT

City Council Minutes

December 15, 2020

Page 2 of 13

Community Development Director Hajduk clarified that “improved service” also meant elongated routes or

extending bus run times, not just more frequency. Ms. Martin replied that was correct. Ms. Martin recapped

that HB 2017 was a five-year plan, and an advisory committee was created to help allocate funding over

those five years and commented that funding changed yearly. She stated that TriMet had extra funding from

the first two years of HB 2017 and their projects for fiscal year 2022 and 2023 had changed since the start

of the pandemic, and they were now focusing on service preservation and a smaller amount on service

expansion for lines that the committee had chosen in 2018. She provided an overview of the ongoing STIF

funding for FY 22 and FY 23 on page 9 of the presentation. She stated the Southwest Service Enhancement

Plan was adopted in 2015 and served as a long-range vision document for TriMet. Council President

Rosener asked who served on the TriMet committee that recommended route selection and how fringe cities

were represented? Ms. Martin replied there were roughly 30 committee members that included elected

officials, transit advocates, and Washington County representation and commented she would send further

information on the committee to Council after the meeting. She provided an overview of the three routes that

serve Sherwood on page 11 of the presentation. Discussion regarding ridership data collection and historic

Sherwood express routes occurred. Council expressed that they would like more information about the

number of Sherwood riders on the TriMet lines that served Sherwood. Ms. Martin reported that in fall 2019,

the most on/offs for Line 94 occurred at SW Railroad and Washington (42 ons on average for the entire

day). Council President Rosener commented that there was a popular Park & Ride location at the Sherwood

movie theater, so having another Park & Ride location in downtown Sherwood did not make as much sense.

Councilor Scott added that having a downtown Sherwood Park & Ride forced buses to snake through the

narrow streets of Old Town for no other reason than to service the Park & Ride. Discussion occurred. Ms.

Martin explained that Lines 94 and 97 were trying to operate as a commuter connection to get people to

downtown Portland or to the WES station. Community Development Director Hajduk added that Line 97 was

in the Service Enhancement Plan because of the Tonquin Employment Area and the Tualatin Industrial

Area, so ridership will likely increase as those areas are developed. Ms. Martin added that Line 97 was

roughly two years old, so ridership would increase as time went on.

Council President Rosener asked that TriMet review the wider geography of Sherwood to better route buses

to have the buses pass through downtown and thereby provide better service to the wider community and

residents on the south side of Sherwood. Ms. Hajduk asked Ms. Martin to discuss how TriMet’s process for

making major rerouting decisions versus minor rerouting decisions. Ms. Martin explained that the Service

Enhancement Plan served as TriMet’s blueprint for looking at how to add or where to add service. She

reported that TriMet completed a review of existing service each spring where they reviewed data and

requests, determine what was feasible for changes to lines, complete two outreach cycles to community

members in the fall and early spring a year before any changes would occur, and a cost analysis. After the

second feedback cycle in the spring, they take the findings to their board where they conduct two separate

readings. After the second reading, if the board approves the Annual Service Plan, the plan is implemented

internally for execution by staff. Councilor Garland asked if Sherwood was a part of TriMet’s last outreach

effort? Ms. Martin replied that TriMet had one proposal for FY 22 for changes to Line 93 and 94 and TriMet

had completed community outreach to Sherwood. She commented that the route depicted on page 13 was

created as a quick response to the Sherwood Al Fresco program, and they had not completed outreach for

that change because it was at the request of the City. Council President Rosener asked how demand was

calculated for areas that did not currently have service? Ms. Martin replied that they looked at services along

a potential route that would draw riders, how much further from the current routing a new route would be,

and layover locations for drivers. Council President Rosener asked how cities could work with TriMet staff

to put forward specific routing proposals? Discussion occurred. Ms. Martin replied that if Council had a

specific proposal put together that they wanted to pursue, they could forward it to TriMet for review. Councilor

Brouse asked Ms. Martin if she had any information about why the 2014-2015 discussion regarding adding

DRAFT

City Council Minutes

December 15, 2020

Page 3 of 13

service to the YMCA had dwindled. Community Development Director Hajduk replied she believed that the

discussion occurred when TriMet was completing their Service Enhancement Plan and determined that a

smaller local shuttle would provide that service because there was community pushback on potential buses

on Sunset Boulevard and Langer Drive. She commented that TriMet had to balance street accommodations

as well as community concerns and asked Ms. Martin how TriMet handled situations when a route would

provide good service and could accommodate a bus, but there was community pushback? Ms. Martin replied

that TriMet’s board was less likely to keep a new route in the Annual Service Plan if they received public

testimony against it. Council President Rosener asked how cities could work with TriMet staff to put forward

specific routing proposals? Ms. Martin replied that there was no formal process and Council could pass their

wishes along to Community Development Director Hajduk and Ms. Hajduk could pass that information to

TriMet and added that future work sessions with herself was also an option. She commented that TriMet

was proposing combining Lines 93 and 94 into a single line for FY 22 to reduce the number of trips in

downtown Sherwood and make the line more efficient. Community Development Director Hajduk

commented that holding regular work sessions with Ms. Martin to discuss TriMet service in Sherwood was

an option if Council wished. Ms. Martin stated that TriMet was proposing to retain the current downtown

Sherwood routing that was created to accommodate the Al Fresco program for the next fiscal year, and they

would be completing rider outreach in January. She reported that TriMet’s operators, field team, and

supervisors were in favor of keeping the current routing in downtown Sherwood after the Al Fresco program

ended. She asked if Council had any advice or if they wished to do outreach regarding keeping the current

route? Councilor Scott stated he would like to do more outreach and wanted more information about what

impact the current route was having on the Park & Ride riders. Council President Rosener stated he wanted

to complete more outreach and asked if there were other routing options. Discussion occurred. Ms. Martin

commented that any route changes needed to be cost neutral during the pandemic. Councilor Young asked

if TriMet reviewed the service times for their lines? Ms. Martin replied that they reviewed service hours for

their lines. Community Development Director Hajduk asked regarding timelines for Council to provide

feedback and direction on the downtown Sherwood routing? Ms. Martin replied that February or March would

be a good time for her to come back and present Council the information TriMet had collected from their

outreach and the City could provide more information about the current status of the Al Fresco program and

reopening of Railroad Street, and discuss Park & Ride options. Council President Rosener and Councilors

Young and Scott expressed interest in working with Community Development Director Hajduk before the

next TriMet work session.

5. RECESSED:

Mayor Mays recessed the work session at 7:06 pm and convened a regular session.

REGULAR SESSION

1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mays called the meeting to order at 7:12 pm.

2. COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Keith Mays, Council President Tim Rosener, Councilors Doug Scott, Renee

Brouse, Kim Young, Sean Garland, and Russell Griffin.

3. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Joe Gall, City Attorney Josh Soper, IT Director Brad Crawford, Community

Development Director Julia Hajduk, Police Chief Jeff Groth, Finance Director David Bodway, Public Works

Director Craig Sheldon, Planning Manager Erika Palmer, Community Services Director Kristen Switzer,

DRAFT

City Council Minutes

December 15, 2020

Page 4 of 13

Associate Planner Eric Rutledge, Economic Development Manager Bruce Coleman, City Engineer Bob

Galati, and City Recorder Sylvia Murphy.

GUESTS: Eric Evans, Erica Anderson, Tim Roth, Steve Miller, Craig Leichner, Chris Bell, Kristen Leichner,

and Brad Miller.

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

MOTION: FROM COUNCILOR GRIFFIN TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. SECONDED BY COUNCILOR

BROUSE. MOTION PASSED 7:0, ALL MEMBERS VOTED lN FAVOR.

Mayor Mays addressed the next agenda item.

5. CONSENT AGENDA:

A. Approval of November 24, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes

B. Approval of December 1, 2020 City Council meeting Minutes

C. Resolution 2020-090 Approving Intergovernmental Agreement between Washington County and

City of Sherwood to Fund Implementation of City of Sherwood Emergency Small Business Grant

Program Due to Governor’s State-Wide Two-Week Freeze

D. Resolution 2020-091 Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement between Washington County

and City of Sherwood for Public Mental Health and Community Psyche Program

E. Resolution 2020-092 Approving Intergovernmental Agreement Amendment #1 between

Washington County and City of Sherwood for Cities and Special District Assistance Program

F. Resolution 2020-093 Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement for the Collection of Local

Recreational Marijuana Taxes

MOTION: FROM COUNCILOR BROUSE TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA. SECONDED BY

COUNCILOR YOUNG. MOTION PASSED 7:0, ALL MEMBERS VOTED IN FAVOR.

Mayor Mays addressed the next agenda item.

6. CITIZEN COMMENTS:

The City Recorder reported that Neil Shannon had provided written comments regarding the Brookman Road

Concept Plan projects and read the comments aloud, and stated that the email would be included in the

meeting record.

Mayor Mays addressed the next agenda item.

7. NEW BUSINESS

A. Resolution 2020-084 Opposing the Proposed Tipping Fee Increase by Metro

City Manager Joe Gall explained that this resolution had previously been tabled and was something the City

and Council had been following closely. He reported that Metro had decided against two tipping fee increases

in 2021 and had decided to pursue a single tipping fee increase of roughly $15 per ton on July 1, 2021. He

explained that the proposed resolution had been drafted by himself, City Attorney Josh Soper, and Council

DRAFT

City Council Minutes

December 15, 2020

Page 5 of 13

President Rosener and reported that Metro would vote on the proposed tipping fee increase on December

. Council President Rosener explained that the Thursday Metro vote would decide if Metro would permit

the proposed increases, but the fee increase would not take effect until July. He commented he did not feel

it was appropriate for Metro to make that decision at this time in order to allow for more feedback from

community stakeholders. Councilor Garland commented that he did not approve of the proposed rate

increase because of the impact it would have on ratepayers during the pandemic.

MOTION: FROM COUNCILOR BROUSE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2020-084 OPPOSING THE

PROPOSED TIPPING FEE INCREASE BY METRO. SECONDED BY COUNCILOR SCOTT. MOTION

PASSED 7:0, ALL MEMBERS VOTED IN FAVOR.

Mayor Mays addressed the next agenda item and the City Recorder read the public hearing statement and

stated that no public comments had been received for any of the public hearing items.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. Ordinance 2020-012 Approving a 41-plot Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as the

Denali Summit Planned Unit Development (First Reading)

Associate Planner Eric Rutledge presented the “LU 2020-013 Denali Summit 41-Plot PUD & Subdivision”

PowerPoint presentation (see record, Exhibit B) and explained that the applicant was proposing a 41-lot

single-family residential subdivision and Planned Unit Development in the Very Low Density Residential

(VLDR) zone. He explained that PUD applications are processed as a Type V land use action pursuant to

the Sherwood Development Code and the Type V Hearing Authority was the City Council and the Appeal

Authority was the Land Use Board of Appeals. He provided an overview of the application process and

explained that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application on November 10, 2020.

The Planning Commission had recommended approval of the application subject to the findings and

conditions in the staff report, with the addition of one condition of approval related to open space. Since the

Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant had submitted a Conceptual Open Space Plan and

revised plat for consideration by City Council. He reported that one public comment was received that was

not included in the Planning Commission record and the second hearing for the proposed ordinance was

scheduled for January 5, 2021. He provided an overview of the public notices, public testimony, and agency

comments on page 4 of the presentation and explained the notice of the application was routed to affected

agencies on September 30, 2020 and agency comments had been incorporated into the findings and

exhibits of the staff report. Public notice of the application was provided in accordance with § 16.72.020 of

the Development Code including mailed notice to property owners within 1,000 feet of the site. He reported

that one public comment was received on the application. He reviewed the site location and existing

conditions and stated the development site contained three parcels containing approximately 15.07 acres.

Two of the properties contained a single-family home which were proposed to remain. He reported that

based on the latest data from Metromap, the site did not contain wetlands or a 100-year floodplain. The

development site was historically a part of the 40-acre Ken Foster Farm and contained contaminated soils

from discarded animal hides and carcasses from a nearby tannery. He explained that the applicant was

responsible for soil cleanup as part of the development and the applicant was currently working with DEQ

on the cleanup process. The applicant will be required to submit a “No Further Action” confirmation from

DEQ prior to City acceptance of the public improvements. He reported that the development site was

surrounded by private property in all directions and a portion of the southern boundary abutted SW Ironwood

Lane. The property to the north was a 12.40-acre site that was currently occupied by a single-family home.

The new public street system created by the subject development will be stubbed for future extension

DRAFT

City Council Minutes

December 15, 2020

Page 6 of 13

through this property. He reviewed the preferred SE Sherwood Master Plan alternative (Alternative B/C) on

page 10 of the presentation and explained that the SE Sherwood Master Plan was developed in 2006 and

was intended to serve as a guide for coordinating separate land use actions and infrastructure investments

in the planning area. Mayor Mays interjected that the City Council had never adopted the SE Sherwood

Master Plan and should not be used as a reference in the presentation. Community Development Director

Julia Hajduk clarified that the Planning Commission resolution that adopted the SE Sherwood Master Plan

was the only resolution the Planning Commission had ever adopted. Mayor Mays replied that the Planning

Commission did not have the authority to adopt legislation, and could only make recommendations to

Council. City Attorney Josh Soper clarified that Council did not adopt the SE Sherwood Master Plan, but

Council did approve of an ordinance that was adopted into the Land Use Code that references conforming

to the SE Sherwood Master Plan, which made discussing it during this hearing necessary. Mr. Rutledge

continued that the SE Sherwood Master Plan assumed that the area would be developed under separate

land use actions and therefore provided a plan for the overall area. The plan did not result in any

amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan or Zoning map but was accepted by the Planning

Commission via Resolution 2006-01. He reported that in 2013, the City approved a text amendment to the

VLDR zoning district to allow up to four units per acre in the zone if the development met the PUD approval

criteria and generally conformed to the SE Sherwood Master Plan. The applicant was proposing a

development under this code section with a final net density of 3.34 units per acre. Councilor Scott asked

what the densities were for the other two PUDs that had been approved for this area? Mr. Rutledge replied

he did not have the exact number, but believed they were under the highest threshold and stated he would

get the final density numbers to Council soon. Steve Miller replied that the other PUDs were below the

maximum density.

Associate Planner Rutledge explained that a total of 41-lot single-family residential lots were proposed,

which included the existing homes. The lot sizes would range from 10,000-20,886 square feet, with an

average lot size of 11,094 square feet. He reported that 1.84 acres of open space was being proposed and

would include pedestrian pathways to connect the east and west ends of the site and a pedestrian easement

was also proposed between Tracts E & F. The tract shown in blue on page 12 was the proposed stormwater

facility. He explained that the primary street design was originally designed to begin at the location of the

proposed stormwater facility, but due to spacing issues between existing driveways and the new public street

the street was moved to come off of Ironwood Lane. He reported that since the Planning Commission

hearing, the applicant had provided a revised plat that re-oriented Lots 3 and 4 to face and take access from

Tract E. The change was intended to allow the public street to stop short of the property line and reduce the

amount of fill that is needed to provide road and utility infrastructure. Mr. Rutledge explained that the

applicant was requesting an exception to certain development standards as shown in the table on page 14

of the presentation and stated that the applicant’s narrative stated that due to the physical conditions of the

site, the developer would like to have flexibility in home placement in order to avoid grading and site

disturbance in areas that had building constraints. He provided an overview of the approval criteria for PUD

developments and explained that in order to get the exceptions to the underlying zoning standards, the

development would need to show compliance with the standards listed on page 15. He stated that the

applicant had submitted two Architectural Pattern Books that provided details on the building design and

material, and the housing types were compatible with the surrounding residential developments including

Denali Meadows and Denali Lane.

He stated that the Sherwood Development Code required one off street parking space per dwelling unit for

single family residences and the applicant was proposing a minimum of one off-street parking space located

on the private driveway of each property, which met the criteria. He explained that PUDs were required to

dedicate 15% of the buildable portion of the site as open space and the applicant was proposing three open

DRAFT

City Council Minutes

December 15, 2020

Page 7 of 13

space tracts totaling 1.84 acres within Tracts A, C, & G, which equated to 14.98% of the buildable portion of

the site. Mr. Rutledge explained that less than 15% open space could be approved if the development was

located within close proximity to existing public spaces that, when combined with the proposed open spaces

meet or exceed community needs. He stated that the staff report explained that approximately 12,134 square

feet of open space above the 15% requirement was provided in the adjacent Denali Meadows and Denali

Lane developments. He reported that because all of the open space that would be connected via a system

of sidewalks and parks, the staff report found that the overall system of open space could meet community

needs. Council President Rosener asked if Tract C was fairly level or steep? Mr. Rutledge replied that Tract

C contained a slope that went down to Rock Creek and the applicant had submitted an Open Space Concept

Plan for Tract C that was feasible to execute with the topography. He reported that the Planning

Commission’s deliberations on the proposal focused on the location, design, and required amenities for the

proposed open space. The Planning Commission had discussed whether the proposed open space

conformed to goals and objectives of the SE Sherwood Master Plan and provided adequate public benefit,

and in order to address the concerns, the Commission added Condition of Approval B17 which required the

applicant provide an Open Space Amenities Plan prior to approval of the Final Development Plan. He

explained that the applicant had provided a Conceptual Open Space Plan that provided additional detail on

the proposed improvements. He provided an overview of the breakdown of parks, trees, and open spaces

that the three PUDs would provide on page 21 of the presentation. Council President Rosener asked if

comparing open spaces to parks was appropriate given the usability of some of the open spaces given the

topography. Councilor Scott asked if there were any amenities proposed for the open spaces. Mr. Rutledge

replied that at this point, there was no play structure or gazebo type of structure and it was intended to be

open space and commented that the applicant could speak more on that when the time came.

Mr. Rutledge explained that single-family subdivisions were required to provide a 40% tree canopy over the

net development site and the required canopy coverage could be met through preserving existing trees,

planting new trees in public spaces and through street trees. For this development, 40% equated to

approximately 182,000 square feet of tree canopy. He reported that Condition of Approval B14 required that

the applicant provide a revised landscape plan showing the minimum required tree canopy and staff was

also recommending Condition of Approval B12 and 13 which would require verification and protection of all

trees within the open space tracts unless an arborist report recommended tree removal. He outlined

transportation facilities for the PUD and stated that based on the revised plat, 28 lots would be accessed

from new public streets and 13 lots would be accessed via private streets. Council President Rosener asked

how wide would the road be, and would there be parking on both sides of the road? Mr. Rutledge replied

that the street was a 52-foot right-of-way and was unsure about the parking for a standard local residential

street, but he would provide that information to Council soon. Discussion regarding how wide the street

would be not including sidewalks occurred. City Engineer Bob Galati clarified that the street was a 52-foot

right-of-way with a 28-foot paved width, which allowed for parking on one side of the street. Associate

Planner Rutledge reviewed the neighborhood circulation map, sanitary sewers and water supply locations,

and stormwater locations on pages 24-26 of the presentation. He reported that they had received one public

comment regarding the PUD and read the comment aloud. He reported that staff had drafted three

alternatives for Council to consider and outlined that Council could approve the application based on the

Planning Commission’s findings and conditions, as modified by the revised plat, Council could modify the

Planning Commission’s findings and approve the application with conditions, as modified by the revised plat,

or Council could modify the Planning Commission’s findings and deny the application. He reported that a

second hearing for the proposed ordinance was scheduled for January 5, 2021.

Mayor Mays explained the definition of ex parte contact and asked if anyone had had ex parte contact with

the applicant or members of the Planning Commission. He reported that he had spoken with Planning

DRAFT

City Council Minutes

December 15, 2020

Page 8 of 13

Commission Chair Jean Simson after the Planning Commission had held their public hearing for the

proposed PUD and she had expressed concerns regarding the process that staff and the Planning

Commission had gone through and had asked that Council send the proposal back to the Planning

Commission for further review. No other ex parte contact was reported by the Council. Applicant Steve Miller

reported that the revised plats for lots 3 and 4 came at the request of City engineering staff in order to

eliminate the need for a retaining wall to support the street. Mayor Mays asked if the applicant would pay

the city to construct the road? Mr. Miller replied that it was his understanding that that would be resolved

when the development of the property to the north would extend the street from where Denali Summit

terminated the street to connect it to the other property, and that was why they were dedicating the right-of-

way to that point. Mr. Miller reported that all of the Denali PUDs were developed to be below maximum

density. He explained that they had relocated the access points for the open spaces to allow for the retention

of the existing properties. He reported that they planned to make the slope less severe so the site could be

enhanced as an open space and commented that they would extend the trail through so it could be extended

to the property to the north as envisioned. He reported that the Planning Commission alternative stipulated

that the large grove of trees be preserved for the open space, but the trees were no longer there, so there

was no longer an issue of using that area as open space. He explained that the developers had been working

to remove the contaminated soil out of the area in order to meet DEQ standards.

Mayor Mays asked if the City had received any public comments regarding the proposed ordinance. The

City Recorder replied that no public comments had been submitted. Mayor Mays asked what the 120-day

deadline date was for the application. Associate Planner Rutledge replied that January 26

was the 120-day

deadline. Councilor Scott commented that it made more sense to him if a road was constructed instead of

having two private streets and driveways that served more than one house. He asked who was responsible

for the maintenance on Tract C in the Open Space Plan and how accessible was Tract C? Mr. Miller replied

that currently it was proposed that the homeowner be responsible for the maintenance of the open space

area by using HOA fees. He explained that another option was to dedicate it to the City to create more of a

park and then have the City maintain the amenities and space. He stated that the open space was not

intended to be used as a destination like parks are if it was maintained by homeowners. He reported that

there would be good visibility of open space access because they would use 3.5 feet tall fences. Councilor

Scott commented on their request for a setback reduction along the property line that abuts to the existing

lot on Lots 11 and 12 and asked the applicant to speak on why they had asked to put an encumbrance on a

property owner outside of the PUD. Mr. Miller referred to the existing conditions map on page 7 of the

presentation and explained that the conifers that lined Lots 10 and 12 and the nearest house in the northeast

corner abutted the open space area, and they felt that retaining the existing trees would help mitigate the 5-

foot reduction to the setback that they were requesting, and would help minimize any impact on the existing

house that abutted the open space tract. He explained that they requested the rear setback reduction for

Lots 11 and 12 because the curve in the street created a shallower depth on the lots. Councilor Griffin asked

regarding the open space in Tract A, and asked how tall the fences would be on Lots 35, 24, and 23? Mr.

Miller replied that it would be lower fences, similar to the fences in Tract C, coming up the flagpole, and then

6-foot fencing further back to provide more privacy for homeowners. Councilor Griffin asked how wide the

road would be for Tract A? Mr. Miller replied it was 12-feet wide. Councilor Griffin asked what material the

road would be constructed from? Mr. Miller replied that the Planning Commission wanted hard surface paths,

likely asphalt. Councilor Griffin commented that he did not see any landscaping for the Tract A road. Mr.

Miller replied that it was challenging to fit in everything into that area and they did not plan to add landscaping

along the flagpole path. Councilor Griffin asked what percentage of Tract C was usable space? Mr. Miller

replied that the Open Space Concept Plan on page 19 of the presentation was a good representation of the

usable space with the brown area being the less usable area. Councilor Griffin asked if the capped

contaminated soil would be used to fill in the sloped area of Tract C. Mr. Miller replied it was his

DRAFT

City Council Minutes

December 15, 2020

Page 9 of 13

understanding that the most contaminated soil would be removed from the site and the soil with lower levels

of contamination would remain on site and would be capped, per DEQ’s preferences. Councilor Griffin asked

where in Tract C would that soil be used? Mr. Miller replied it would be used throughout Tract C. Councilor

Griffin asked if the two walkways to Tract C would be the same width as the walkway going to Tract A and

would they have landscaping? Mr. Miller replied there would be landscaping around the trail of Tract C, but

the access points may have flowers or low shrubs but not trees or large landscaping. Councilor Griffin asked

if the path between Tract E and F was narrower than the others and was it a sloped area and would it be

made ADA complaint for access to the other tracts? Mr. Miller replied it would be difficult to have ADA

compliant access through Tract A because of the slope and explained that they would make it a hard surface

path. He explained that they had not connected the two tracks because they were not aligned perfectly, and

topography and efficiencies made it easier to put in the connection that they were proposing on page 19 of

the presentation. Councilor Griffin asked how people would access Tract G? Mr. Miller replied it could be

accessed from the street that ran north/south. Councilor Scott asked the applicant to speak on what public

benefits they would provide if their requested variances were granted. Mr. Miller replied that they were not

asking for any reductions in lot sizes and explained that the conifers that lined Lots 10 and 12 and the nearest

house in the northeast corner abutted the open space area, and they felt that retaining the existing trees

would help mitigate the 5-foot reduction to the setback that they were requesting, and would help minimize

any impact on the existing house that abutted the open space tract. He explained that they requested the

rear setback reduction for Lots 11 and 12 because the curve in the street created a shallower depth on the

lots. Councilor Scott asked the applicant to speak on what public benefits they would provide if their

requested variances were granted. Mr. Miller commented that through his previous work with the City on

other PUDs, he felt that determining what the public benefits were was a moving target that City staff could

not provide guidance on and commented that Council and the Planning Commission had identified the

cleanup of the contaminated soil as an important goal. He stated that the 15% open area provided in the

PUD was significantly greater than any other project would have to provide in the City. He commented that

he would defer to the Council to help give him a better understanding of what they meant by public benefit.

He added that the PUD added housing that was needed in the state and was an efficient use of the land as

well as preserving the open space that abutted Rock Creek. Councilor Young asked if permitting parking on

one side of the street was the norm for new roads in Sherwood, and if street parking would be permitted on

the private roads? Mr. Miller replied that the City had a range of street standards, and they were building a

28-foot street and the street’s location would help increase parking and commented that they planned to

build houses with two or three car garages with 20-foot deep 2-car driveways, so street parking would be

minimal. He reported that the private streets did not permit street parking. Council President Rosener stated

he had concerns about the sight lines at the corners of the street, especially if street-parked cars were

present. Mr. Miller replied that they could alternate which side of the street people could park on along the

road to increase safety. Council President Rosener asked if they considered a wider street that would allow

for parking on both sides and two lanes of traffic? Mr. Miller replied that the lot sizes limited their choice of

street width. Council President Rosener asked what the topography was for the land to the east of Tract A?

Mr. Miller replied that was relatively flat but did have a 4:1 slope in the landscaped area.

Brad Miller explained that he owned the middle tract and expressed that for the development of the

northernmost tract to be possible, the dedication of the public ROW was necessary as the ROW on Murdock

had already been approved so the configuration of the development was fairly set with the entrance going

through the middle of his property. He stated that the plans were drafted with those constraints as they were

staff required elements. He explained the private drives were necessary as they provided access to existing

homes that took topography and utilities into consideration. Regarding open space, he commented that the

open spaces they were providing was for the public’s enjoyment, not just residents. He commented on

cleanup and density and stated that the density was necessary in order to make the cleanup financially

DRAFT

City Council Minutes

December 15, 2020

Page 10 of 13

feasible. He clarified that the requested setback concessions were to allow for home-design leeway to add

features like a bay window or an eve overhang, not to put homes directly on the property line. Mayor Mays

stated he was concerned that the PUD did not provide enough public benefit for a PUD and Tract C would

be needed to house lightly contaminated soil, and he did not consider that to be a part of the percentage of

benefit considering the other concessions that were on the site. He remarked that there was not enough

connectivity within the PUD, and he was not in favor of a 20 MPH speed limit on a curvy road and he would

prefer a street that was wide enough to allow for parking on both sides. He stated that he preferred to send

the PUD back to the Planning Commission for further review, which would require that the applicant agree

to extend the 120-day rule by 30-45 days. Council President Rosener commented he was concerned about

the road’s sharp corners, sight lines, and safety, particularly at night. He stated he was in favor of sending

the PUD back the Planning Commission for further review. He remarked that he understood the

environmental benefit of remediating the site but was unsure if that translated into a wider community benefit.

He asked to hear more information from the applicant about the planned benefit for the wider community.

Councilor Scott remarked that he had safety concerns over the street design and commented he preferred

a sharp 90 degree turn in order to force drivers to slow down as they turned the corner. Planning Manager

Erika Palmer clarified that the City’s code stated that the Planning Commission gives a recommendation to

Council. Mayor Mays interjected and clarified that he understood the process but was requesting that the

applicant agree to extend the 120-day rule and send the PUD back to the Planning Commission. City

Attorney Soper stated that there was no process in the City’s code to send the PUD back to the Planning

Commission, and the Mayor was proposing something that was outside the usual process. He stated there

was some risk in that, but if the applicant agreed to do so, it would help to mitigate the risk. Steve Miller

asked what specifically the Planning Commission would review? Mayor Mays replied that he wanted the

Planning Commission to determine if the proposal met the benefit to the community requirements for a PUD

or if other changes were appropriate because the applicant was getting other exceptions to the rules, should

Tracts E and F be a real road, and what other road configurations were possible for the main road. Steve

Miller replied that the road was designed to slow traffic down and the street’s location and alignment was

designed based on site restrictions. Discussion regarding the previous Planning Commission meetings

occurred. Councilor Young commented that if the applicant agreed to extend the 120-day rule, she was in

favor of sending the PUD back to the Planning Commission for review. Steve Miller replied that he and

Planning Commission had reviewed all of the issues that Mayor Mays cited during their public hearing

process and commented that the Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission had expressed the most concern

and did not believe that the new Planning Commission members were uninformed about the PUD process,

and the vote to recommend the PUD to Council was unanimous. He added that the Commission had

forwarded their recommendation to Council with the conditions of approval cited in the staff report. Councilor

Griffin commented that a PUD was a give and take process and felt that if the open space in Tract C was

mostly for residents, then it should not be counted as a part of a public benefit. Steve Miller stated that he

would like clear direction from Council on what they and the Planning Commission needed to review. Mayor

Mays asked Mr. Miller if he was supportive of Council sending the PUD back to the Planning Commission

for further review and adding an additional 45 days to the 120-day clock or would he prefer to leave it with

Council under the current timeline? Joint applicant Tim Roth replied that the development of the PUD would

not be possible without the joint efforts of himself and the Miller family and stated that they were working

within their cost analysis to provide a benefit to both the City and the development. He commented he felt

that Chair Simson had an issue with the SE Sherwood Master Plan and wanted the PUD to be more in

compliance with the SE Sherwood Master Plan. He stated he was not interested in sending the PUD back

to the Commission or extending the 120-day rule. Brad Miller clarified that the changes to the standards that

are in the PUD had been at the request of the city engineer and they had asked for modifications to get

those changes to work. He stated that the entire configuration of the PUD on his property was designed to

meet transportation plans, sight distances, design modifications, and the request from the planners to retain

DRAFT

City Council Minutes

December 15, 2020

Page 11 of 13

the existing homes so it was monetarily feasible to complete the project. He remarked that adding delays to

the project would make the development of the PUD financially unfeasible and major changes or

modifications to the project would likely not work. He stated he agreed with Mr. Roth that the development

was designed within the confines of the City’s Transportation Plan and other requirements and the properties

being closely linked made for an inflexible design. Mayor Mays closed the public hearing portion of the

meeting and stated that because the applicants were not interested in extending the 120-day rule or sending

the PUD back to the Planning Commission, he asked that staff forward their findings to present as options

for City Council that removed the variance on the setbacks for Lots 11 and 12, supplied a different solution

for the road to improve safety, create language that created a narrow road with no parking on either side

that connected Tracts E and F, and a finding requirement that the public access paths remain open to the

public (e.g. no fences or gates to block the pathway). Mayor Mays asked for questions or comments from

Council. Councilor Scott stated he agreed with Mayor Mays and stated he would also like to see the items

come back as options at the next hearing. Councilor Young stated she agreed with Mayor Mays and

Councilor Scott. Associate Planner Rutledge stated that he and staff was available to answer specific

questions regarding the PUD before the next hearing. Community Development Director Julia Hajduk

commented regarding timelines and the holidays and asked that the second public hearing on the PUD be

held on January 19

instead of January 5

, which was still within the 120-days. Mayor Mays said he had

reservations about doing so. Councilor Griffin asked that a review of the idea of alternating parking on the

street be included in the options. Council President Rosener stated he agreed with the Mayor’s list of options

for review and asked that it be determined how it could be ensured that the open spaces stay open to the

general public if the lands were maintained by HOA fees. Mayor Mays commented that he was unsure if

moving the next hearing to January 19

would allow for enough time to produce a clean packet if Council

wanted to support the application with any of the menu of text changes that had been suggested. He asked

if City Attorney Soper or Community Development Director Hajduk had any such reservations? Councilor

Scott asked if it was possible to do individual motions that Council could debate on if it should be added as

a condition for approval and ultimately vote on the revised resolution. City Attorney Soper replied that would

make for a more convoluted process by trying to finalize all of the items and make a final decision in one

hearing, but conversely, if Council did not postpone until the 19

, staff would have very few business days

between now and the next packet deadline to get the requested changes worked up, and commented that

the 19

was probably more feasible. Ms. Hajduk replied that delaying until the 19

would allow staff to ensure

that all the requested items be reviewed, and staff could recommend conditions that would work for the City

and the applicants. Councilor Garland stated he agreed with Ms. Hajduk and stated postponing until the 19

would be best for both staff and the applicant. City Attorney Soper asked Community Development Director

Hajduk if the date of the second hearing had been announced yet? Ms. Hajduk replied that in general, staff

announced when the second reading will be, but if staff announced that the next hearing would be on the

at this meeting, that served as the notice. Associate Planner Rutledge and Planning Manager Palmer

stated that was correct. City Attorney Soper commented that no motions were needed at a first hearing of

an ordinance. Mr. Rutledge asked City Attorney Soper if any timelines needed to be added in order to work

in a potential appeal to fit within the 120-days? Ms. Hajduk replied that the 120-day rule was for local appeals

and because Council was the final decision maker, as soon as Council issued a decision, the City had met

the 120-day period requirement.

Mayor Mays addressed the next agenda item.

B. Ordinance 2020-013 Amending Chapters 3.25 and 5.30 of the Sherwood Municipal Code relating

to Marijuana Taxes and Businesses and Declaring an Emergency (First Reading)

DRAFT

City Council Minutes

December 15, 2020

Page 12 of 13

City Attorney Soper recapped that Council had discussed the results of the November 3

election as it

related to ballot measure 34-299 and stated that Council had formally accepted the canvassing of the results

and amended the City Code in alignment with the ballot measure legislation. He explained that staff had

prepared some cleanup ordinances that he anticipated to be made into two separate ordinances to address

some gaps and other housekeeping issues related to the ballot measure. He stated that this ordinance was

the first of the two and pertained to everything other than land use, and the other ordinance would address

land use only issues. He outlined that this ordinance would update statutory references, a broadening of

Chapter 5.30 to apply to all marijuana businesses, not just recreational businesses, in order to create an

alignment between recreational business regulations and medical marijuana business regulations, and the

hours of operation language was now located in Chapter 5.30. He explained that the reason for bringing the

ordinance to Council on an expedited basis was to add language to allow the city to designate the

Department of Revenue to administer the tax on behalf of the City and to include language that the

Department of Revenue required to be added if they were to administer the tax regarding interest and

penalties and giving them the authority to assess those. He stated that in order to have the Department of

Revenue start collecting the tax on behalf of the City on January 1, 2021, when the measure went into effect

and when the Department of Revenue’s quarter tax collection cycle began, staff was recommending that

Council approve the proposed ordinance unanimously in a single hearing on an emergency basis to make

it effective on January 1

. Mayor Mays asked for questions or discussion from Council. Hearing none, he

asked for a motion.

MOTION: FROM COUNCILOR BROUSE TO READ CAPTION AND ADOPT ORDINANCE 2020-013

AMENDING CHAPTERS 3.25 AND 5.30 OF THE SHERWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO

MARIJUANA TAXES AND BUSINESSES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. SECONDED BY

COUNCILOR GARLAND. MOTION PASSED 7:0, ALL MEMBERS VOTED IN FAVOR.

Mayor Mays addressed the next agenda item.

9. CITY MANAGER REPORT:

City Manager Joe Gall stated that he had nothing to report and asked for Council questions for staff. Mayor

Mays thanked Mr. Gall and City staff for all their hard work overcoming the challenges this year had

presented.

Mayor Mays addressed the next agenda item.

10. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS:

None.

11. ADJOURN:

Mayor Mays adjourned the regular session at 9:48 pm and reconvened the work session.

WORK SESSION

1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mays called the work session to order at 9:48 pm.

DRAFT

City Council Minutes

December 15, 2020

Page 13 of 13

2. COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Keith Mays, Council President Tim Rosener, Councilors Doug Scott, Renee

Brouse, Kim Young, Sean Garland, and Russell Griffin.

3. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Joe Gall, City Attorney Josh Soper, IT Director Brad Crawford, Police

Chief Jeff Groth, Finance Director David Bodway, HR Manager Christina Jones, Community Services

Director Kristen Switzer, Public Works Director Craig Sheldon, and City Recorder Sylvia Murphy.

4. TOPICS

B. City Attorney Compensation

Mayor Mays explained that this meeting was to discuss attorney compensation, not to conduct a

performance review, as the performance review would be done at a later date and explained that Councilor

Young would recap the compensation discussion. Councilor Young recapped that in Mr. Soper’s 2019

evaluation, Council was not comfortable approving more than the standard 2.5% for employees that were

not on a step chart module. She recommended that Council do a 5% increase to progress the pay towards

the target of getting the position compensation to be closer to market level. A 5% increase would increase

his salary to $147,000 and referred to the 2019 salary survey that stated the average and median

compensation was roughly $140,000. Mayor Mays asked if Mr. Soper would be eligible to receive the COLA

increase in July 2021? Councilor Young replied that was correct. Mayor Mays stated he would like to review

Mr. Soper’s contract in summer 2021 for a renewal or extension. Councilor Young replied that Mr. Soper’s

contract went to December 1, 2021 and commented that Council President Rosener had suggested moving

the performance evaluations of both the City Manager and City Attorney to align with the budget season.

Mayor Mays commented that a review of Mr. Gall’s compensation was also needed and remarked that

Council would do so in the spring and make it retroactive. Councilor Scott commented that since Councilor

Young as proposing a 5% increase, double what a COLA increase would be, and she had made reference

to trying to bring the compensation up to market, but he was confused because it sounded like market was

less than what she was currently proposing and asked for clarification. Councilor Young clarified that the

market rate of $140,000 was nearly two years ago, and it was assumed that the average and median had

increased since that time, and the proposed 5% increase would bring Mr. Soper to the average and median

rate of two years ago. Councilor Scott commented he would be in favor of $145,000 and stated he was in

favor of getting the position compensation to market more quickly. Councilor Griffin, Council President

Rosener, Councilor Brouse, and Councilor Garland stated they agreed with Councilor Scott of a

compensation of $145,000. Councilor Young stated she would go with what the majority decided. Council

President Rosener stated that the contracts for the City Manager and City Attorney needed to be amended

to reflect the new review period.

5. ADJOURNED:

Mayor Mays adjourned the work session at 9:57 pm

Attest:

Sylvia Murphy, MMC, City Recorder Keith Mays, Mayor

Resolution 2021-001, Staff Report

January 5, 2021

Page 1 of 1

City Council Meeting Date: January 5, 2021

Agenda Item: Consent Agenda

TO: Sherwood City Council

FROM: Joseph Gall, ICMA-CM, City Manager

SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-001, Amending the Employment Contract between the City

Attorney and the City of Sherwood

Issue:

Shall the City Council approve amending the employment contract between the City Attorney and

the City of Sherwood?

Background:

During a work session on December 15, 2020, City Council discussed amending the City

Attorney’s employment contract to state that the City Attorney’s performance evaluation would

occur annually at the end of each fiscal year. In addition, the City Council discussed adjusting the

annual base salary to $145,000 effective November 3, 2020 for the City Attorney. The purpose of

this resolution is to approve the amendments to the City Attorney’s employment agreement in

order to implement these changes.

Financial Impacts:

As a result of amending the City Attorney’s employment agreement, the current fiscal year budget

will incur some financial impact. That impact is estimated to be $9,600.

Recommendation:

Staff respectfully recommends adoption of Resolution 2021-001, Amending the Employment

Contract between the City Attorney and the City of Sherwood.

DRAFT

Resolution 2021-001

January 5, 2021

Page 1 of 1, with Exhibit A (1 pg)

RESOLUTION 2021-001

AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY ATTORNEY AND

THE CITY OF SHERWOOD

WHEREAS, Joshua P. Soper (“Soper”) has been employed by the City of Sherwood (“City”) as its City

Attorney since 2015, and Soper and the City are parties to an employment agreement dated August 10,

2015 and currently effective until December 1, 2021 (“Agreement”), as previously amended; and

WHEREAS, Council held a work session on December 15, 2020 and requested that a resolution be

prepared to amend the Agreement to state that Soper’s performance evaluation would occur annually at

the end of each fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, Council intends to adjust Soper’s annual base salary to $145,000 effective November 3, 2020

payable in installments at the same time that the other executive employees of the City are paid.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SHERWOOD RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.

The Sherwood City Council hereby approves Amendment No. 6 to the employment

agreement between the City of Sherwood and Joshua P. Soper as shown in Exhibit A and

authorizes the Mayor to execute said Amendment on behalf of the City.

Section 2.

This Resolution shall be effective upon its approval and adoption.

Duly passed by the City Council this 5th of January, 2021.

______________________

Keith Mays, Mayor

Attest:

Sylvia Murphy, MMC, City Recorder

EXHIBIT A

Amendment No. 6

Employment Agreement between Joshua P. Soper and the City of Sherwood, Oregon

Thi

s Amendment No. 6 to the Employment Agreement between Joshua P. Soper and the

City of Sherwood, Oregon dated August 10, 2015, as previously amended, is made and

entered into by Joshua P. Soper and the City of Sherwood, Oregon as of the date last set

forth below.

The par

ties hereby agree to amend Section 4(A) of the Agreement so that it will read in its

entirety as follows:

A. Bas

e Salary: City agrees to pay Employee an annual base salary of $145,000 effective

November 3, 2020 payable in installments at the same time that the other executive

employees of the City are paid.

The par

ties further agree to amend Section 19 of the Agreement so that it will read in its

entirety as follows:

A. Em

ployer shall annually review the performance of the Employee prior to August of

each year, beginning in 2021, based on the goals and objectives set by City Council,

using a process as determined by City Council.

B. Unless the Employee expressly requests otherwise in writing, the evaluation of the

Employee shall at all times be conducted in executive session of the governing body

(if authorized by law) and shall be considered confidential to the extent permitted by

law. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City or Employee from sharing the content of the

Employee's evaluation with their respective legal counsel.

l other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

ln negotiating and drafting the terms of this Amendment, Soper is representing himself only

and not the legal or other interests of City. Soper has provided no advice to City regarding

the legal effect of this Amendment.

ty of Sherwood Joshua P. Soper

Keith Mays, Mayor Joshua P. Soper

Date Date

Resolution 2021-001, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 1 of 1

Resolution 2021-002, Staff Report

January 5, 2021

Page 1 of 1

City Council Meeting Date: January 5, 2021

Agenda Item: Consent Agenda

TO: Sherwood City Council

FROM: Joseph Gall, ICMA-CM, City Manager

Through: Josh Soper, City Attorney

SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-002, Authorizing the Issuance of Gift Certificates to Members of

the City’s Boards and Commissions

Issue:

Shall the City Council authorize the issuance of gift certificates to members of the City’s boards and

commissions in lieu of the annual recognition dinner?

Background:

Traditionally, the City holds an annual recognition dinner each winter for members of the City’s boards

and commissions in order to reflect on the past year, discuss the forthcoming year, and thank the

members of these boards and commissions for their important service to our community. Unfortunately,

due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it will not be possible for the City to host this event this year.

Instead, the City would like to provide a small gift certificate in the amount of $25 to each member of the

City’s boards and commissions. The City would request that each recipient use the gift certificate to

purchase a take-out meal from one of the various restaurants located in the City. In that way, this

program would have the additional benefit of helping to support these local businesses that have been

significantly impacted by the pandemic.

Due to the requirements of Oregon ethics law and the Sherwood City Charter, it is necessary for City

Council to approve this program by resolution.

Financial Impacts:

The cost of providing gift certificates to these various boards and commissions will be $1,675. The City

did however include $1,200 in the current fiscal year budget for the annual recognition dinner. The net

impact of providing gift certificates versus holding an annual recognition dinner is approximately $475.

Recommendation:

Staff respectfully recommends City Council approval of Resolution 2021-002, Authorizing the issuance of

gift certificates to members of the City’s boards and commissions.

DRAFT

Resolution 2021-002

January 5, 2021

Page 1 of 1

RESOLUTION 2021-002

AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GIFT CERTIFICATES TO MEMBERS OF

THE CITY’S BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

WHEREAS, the City traditionally holds an annual recognition dinner each winter for members of the City’s

boards and commissions in order to reflect on the past year, discuss the forthcoming year, and thank the

members of these boards and commissions for their important service to our community, but, due to the

COVID-19 pandemic, will not be able to hold this event this year; and

WHEREAS, instead, the City would like to provide a small gift certificate in the amount of $25 to each

member of the City’s boards and commissions and request that each recipient use the gift certificate to

purchase a take-out meal from one of the various restaurants located in the City, thereby helping to support

these local businesses that have been significantly impacted by the pandemic; and

WHEREAS, it appears to City Council that this program provides suitable recognition of the service

provided by the members of these boards and commissions, and a small but important amount of economic

relief to City businesses, and that it is therefore an appropriate use of City funds; and

WHEREAS, due to the requirements of Oregon ethics law and the Sherwood City Charter, it is necessary

for City Council to approve this program by resolution and specifically authorize these gift certificates as

official compensation for the members of the City’s boards and commissions.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SHERWOOD RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.

Gift certificates in the amount of $25 each, to be issued in January 2021, are hereby

authorized as official compensation for each person who served at any time during calendar

year 2020 as a member of one or more of the City’s boards and commissions, namely the

Budget Committee (other than City Council members), Cultural Arts Committee, Library

Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Planning Commission, Police

Advisory Board, Traffic Safety Committee, and Senior Advisory Board, and the City Manager

is authorized to issue said gift certificates.

Section 2. This Resolution shall be effective upon its approval and adoption.

Duly passed by the City Council this 5th day of January 2021.

__________________________

Keith Mays, Mayor

Attest:

______________________________

Sylvia Murphy, MMC, City Recorder

Resolution 2021-003, Staff Report

January 5, 2021

Page 1 of 1

City Council Meeting Date: January 5, 2021

Agenda Item: Consent Agenda

TO: Sherwood City Council

FROM: Josh Soper, City Attorney

SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-003, Amending the Employment Contract between the City

Manager and the City of Sherwood

Issue:

Shall the City Council approve amending the employment contract between the City Manager and

the City of Sherwood?

Background:

During a work session on December 15, 2020, City Council discussed amending the City

Manager’s employment contract to state that the City Manager’s performance evaluation would

occur annually at the end of each fiscal year. The purpose of this resolution is to approve that

amendment to the City Manager’s contract.

Financial Impacts:

There is no direct financial impact resulting from adopting this resolution.

Recommendation:

Staff respectfully recommends adoption of Resolution 2021-003, Amending the Employment

Contract between the City Manager and the City of Sherwood.

DRAFT

Resolution 2021-003

January 5, 2021

Page 1 of 1, with Exhibit A (1 pg)

RESOLUTION 2021-003

AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY MANAGER AND

THE CITY OF SHERWOOD

WHEREAS, Joseph P. Gall (“Gall”) has been employed by the City of Sherwood (“City”) as its City Manager

since 2012, and Gall and the City are parties to an employment agreement dated June 30, 2014 and

currently effective until June 30, 2022 (“Agreement”), as previously amended; and

WHEREAS, Council held a work session on December 15, 2020 and requested that a resolution be

prepared to amend the Agreement to state that Gall’s performance evaluation would occur annually at the

end of each fiscal year.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SHERWOOD RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.

The Sherwood City Council hereby approves Amendment No. 8 to the employment

agreement between the City of Sherwood and Joseph P. Gall as shown in Exhibit A and

authorizes the Mayor to execute said Amendment on behalf of the City.

Section 2.

This Resolution shall be effective upon its approval and adoption.

Duly passed by the City Council this 5th of January, 2021.

______________________

Keith Mays, Mayor

Attest:

Sylvia Murphy, MMC, City Recorder

EXHIBIT A

Amendment No. 8

Employment Agreement between Joseph P. Gall and the City of Sherwood, Oregon

Thi

s Amendment No. 8 to the Employment Agreement between Joseph P. Gall and the City

of Sherwood, Oregon dated June 30, 2014, as previously amended, is made and entered

into by Joseph P. Gall and the City of Sherwood, Oregon as of the date last set forth below.

The par

ties hereby agree to amend Section VII of the Agreement so that it will read in its

entirety as follows:

A. CIT

Y shall annually review the performance of EMPLOYEE prior to August of each

year, beginning in 2021, based on the goals and objectives set by City Council, using

a process as determined by City Council.

B. Unless EMPLOYEE expressly requests otherwise in writing, the evaluation of

EMPLOYEE shall at all times be conducted in executive session of the governing body

(if authorized by law) and shall be considered confidential to the extent permitted by

law. Nothing herein shall prohibit CITY or EMPLOYEE from sharing the content of

EMPLOYEE’s evaluation with their respective legal counsel.

All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

ty of Sherwood Joseph P. Gall

Keith Mays, Mayor Joseph P. Gall

Date Date

Resolution 2021-003, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 1 of 1

Resolution 2021-004, Staff Report

January 5, 2021

Page 1 of 2

City Council Meeting Date: January 5, 2021

Agenda Item: Consent Agenda

TO: Sherwood City Council

FROM: Erika Palmer, Planning Manager

Through: Julia Hajduk, Community Development Director and Joseph Gall, ICMA-CM, City

Manager

SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-004, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an

Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Metro to Accept a 2040 Planning and

Development Grant to Fund the Sherwood West Re-look Project

Issue:

Shall the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an IGA with Metro regarding a 2040

Planning and Development Grant in the amount of $130,000 to fund the Sherwood West Re-look

Project?

Background:

The City of Sherwood requested and was awarded a $130,000 grant from Metro's 2040 Planning

and Development Grant Program to "re-look" at the Preliminary Sherwood West Concept Plan. The

initial preliminary concept planning for this area was completed in 2016 and was developed as a

long-range planning tool to help guide future community discussions and decisions about how

Sherwood could grow over the next 50 years. The Plan illustrates how the Sherwood West area,

Metro's Urban Reserve Area 5b, could be incorporated into the City's fabric over time in a manner

that respects and reflects the strong sense of community and livable neighborhoods.

At the time of Preliminary Sherwood West Concept Plan acceptance, the City had not started the

Comprehensive Plan update. As a result, the community had not developed goals and policies

related to housing and economic need, specifically, ensuring a balance of jobs and housing. An

update to both the Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and our Housing Needs Analysis

(HNA) was complete in 2019, and the HNA was formally adopted in December 2020. Through the

completed work thus far through the Comprehensive Plan update, we know that the preliminary

concept plan developed in 2016 is not consistent with our updated vision and goals and the need

to attain a better balance of jobs and housing.

In addition, since the development of the original Sherwood West preliminary concept plan, the

Sherwood School District developed plans to construct a new 350,000 square foot high school on

73 acres within Sherwood West. While the original Plan had some schools assumed, a relocation

of the existing high school to this area was not envisioned. The review of the high school land use

applications required additional transportation improvements and infrastructure improvements that

need to be considered when looking at the area. In anticipation of future UGB expansion decisions

by Metro, the City has identified the need to re-visit the preliminary concept plan with the updated

Resolution 2021-004, Staff Report

January 5, 2021

Page 2 of 2

goals, policies and additional growth in the City and region in mind and refine the Plan as

appropriate.

To obtain Metro's 2040 Planning and Development grant funds, an IGA must be executed. After

the IGA is authorized, Sherwood and Metro staff, and the selected consultant will prepare a scope

of work for this project. The scope of work for this project will then be incorporated into the IGA, as

Exhibit C. The project scope will also be a part of the contract for professional services with the

selected consultant, which is slated for Council review and approval on January 19, 2021.

Financial Impacts

The City will receive $130,000 in reimbursement from Metro to complete this project. The City has

pledged up to $13,000 in matching funds through in-kind services, primarily project management.

Recommendation:

Staff respectfully recommends City Council approval of Resolution 2021-004, authorizing the City

Manager to execute an IGA with Metro to accept a 2040 Planning and Development Grant to fund the

Sherwood West Re-look Project.

DRAFT

Resolution 2021-004

January 5, 202

Page 1 of 1, with Exhibit A (20 pgs)

RESOLUTION 2021-004

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT

(IGA) WITH METRO TO ACCEPT A 2040 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT TO FUND THE

SHERWOOD WEST RE-LOOK PROJECT

WHEREAS, Metro has established the 2040 Planning and Development Grant program to assist

communities in implementing our region’s long-range vision, creating new housing and commercial

opportunities, revitalizing town centers, developing employment areas, reducing barriers to equitable

housing, and planning for future infrastructure and development in new urban areas; and

WHEREAS, the City of Sherwood applied for a 2040 Planning and Development Grant from Metro to

fund the Sherwood West Re-look project; and

WHEREAS, Metro awarded the City of Sherwood a grant in the amount of $130,000; and

WHEREAS, Metro requires an IGA that outlines each party’s responsibilities and commitments and

identifies a set of products and milestones that are in line with the City’s grant request; and

WHEREAS, the City and Metro must sign an IGA to allow the project to proceed and a scope of work to

be developed by City and the selected consulting team; and

WHEREAS, Council will review and approve the project scope of work and professional services contract

before the City starts this project.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SHERWOOD RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.

The Sherwood City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to sign an IGA in a form

substantially similar to the attached Exhibit A.

Section 2.

This Resolution shall be effective upon its approval and adoption.

Duly passed by the City Council this 5

day of January, 2021.

Keith Mays, Mayor

Attest:

Sylvia Murphy, MMC, City Recorder

Contract No. 936864

2040 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA – Metro & The City of Sherwood Page 1

2040 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT

Metro – The City of Sherwood

Sherwood West Preliminary Concept Plan Re-Look

This 2040 Planning and Development Grant Intergovernmental Agreement (this “Agreement”) is

entered into by and between Metro, a metropolitan service district organized under the laws of the state

of Oregon and the Metro Charter, located at 600 Northeast Grand Avenue, Portland OR, 97232 (“Metro”),

and the City of Sherwood, a municipality of the State of Oregon, located at 22560 SW Pine Street,

Sherwood, Oregon 97140 (“Grantee”). Metro and Grantee may be jointly referred to herein as the

“Parties” or each, individually as a “Party”.

BACKGROUND

Metro has established a Construction Excise Tax (“CET”), Metro Code Chapter 7.04, which imposes an

excise tax throughout the Metro regional jurisdiction to fund regional and local planning that is required

to make land ready for development or redevelopment, and to provide funding for plans and projects that

facilitate economic development and community stabilization in the Metro region. The CET is collected by

local jurisdictions when issuing building permits, and is remitted to Metro pursuant to Intergovernmental

Agreements. Metro distributes CET funds to grantees across the region through the 2040 Planning and

Development Grant Program.

The Grantee has submitted a 2040 Planning and Development Grant Request attached hereto as Exhibit A

and incorporated herein (the “Grant Request”) for the Sherwood West Preliminary Concept Plan Re-look

project (the “Project”). Metro has agreed to provide 2040 Planning and Development Grant Funds to

Grantee for the Project in the amount of $130,000 subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein (the

“Grant Funds”), and the Parties wish to set forth the timing, procedures and conditions for receiving the

Grant Funds. In addition to the Grant Funds, other financial contributions have been pledged by Grantee

and other project partners to help fund the Project budget.

AGREEMENT

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Metro Grant Award. Metro shall provide the Grant Funds to Grantee for the Project as approved by

the Metro Council in Resolution 19-5002 and as described in the Grant Request, subject to the terms and

conditions specified in this Agreement.

2. Project Management and Coordination. The Parties have appointed the staff identified below to act as

their respective project managers (each a “Project Manager” and collectively “Project Managers”) with the

authority and responsibility described in this Agreement:

For the Grantee: Erika Palmer

Planning Manager

City of Sherwood

22560 SW Pine Street

Sherwood, OR 97140

503.625.4208

palmere@sherwoodoregon.gov

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 1 of 20

Contract No. 936864

2040 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA – Metro & The City of Sherwood Page 2

For Metro: Rebecca Small

Associate Regional Planner

Metro

600 NE Grand Avenue

Portland, OR 97232

503-797-1721

rebecca.small@oregonmetro.gov

Metro and the Grantee may each designate an additional or replacement Project Manager by providing

written notice to the other party.

3. Mutual Obligations of both the Grantee and Metro. The Parties and their respective Project Managers

will collaborate to oversee the successful implementation of the Project as follows:

(a) Selection of Consultants. The Project Managers will work together to identify consultants best

qualified to perform the scope of work described in the Request for Proposals, attached hereto as

Exhibit B. The Project Managers and any additional reviewers selected by the Parties will

mutually agree upon the selection of the consultant team to perform the work required to

successfully complete the Project.

(b) Schedule of Milestones. The Parties have agreed to a preliminary schedule of milestones for

completion of the Project, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C (the “Milestones”). After the

Project Managers have selected a consultant team as described in subsection 3(a), the Parties each

expressly delegate authority to their respective Project Managers to prepare a revised schedule of

Milestones that will provide more detailed performance timelines for the Project, including

specific consultant and/or Grantee deliverables for each Milestone, and establishing the amount of

Grant Funds to be disbursed by Metro upon satisfactory completion of each Milestone. The Parties

agree that once the Milestones are supplemented and revised by the Project Managers in

accordance with this subsection, Exhibit C shall be automatically amended and the revised

Milestones will become final and binding on the Parties unless and until later amended as allowed

under paragraph 10 of this Agreement.

steering/technical/advisory committee(s), if any, and the composition of such committees or

other bodies. Metro’s Project Manager will participate as a member of any such committee.

4. Grantee Responsibilities. The Grantee shall perform the work on the Project described in the Grant

Request, and as specified in the Milestones, subject to the terms and conditions specified in this

Agreement.

(a) Use of Grant Funds. The Grantee shall use the Grant Funds it receives under this Agreement only

for the purposes specified in the Grant Request and to achieve the Milestones as set forth in this

Agreement. In the event that unforeseen conditions require adjustments to the Project scope,

approach, or schedule, the Grantee shall obtain Metro’s prior written approval before

implementing any revisions to the Project. All travel expenses must be approved in advance by

Metro. Grant funds cannot be used to fund staff time for public agencies or for purchase of

alcoholic beverages. Metro and Grantee have agreed to allocate Grant funds for approved project

expenses such as consultant fees, payments to Grant Project partners, and direct costs as outlined

in Exhibit C.

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 2 of 20

Contract No. 936864

2040 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA – Metro & The City of Sherwood Page 3

(b) Consultant Contract(s). After the Project Managers have selected the consultant team and

completed a revision of the Milestones as described above in section 3, the Grantee shall enter into

a contract(s) with the selected consultant team to complete the work as described in the

Milestones as revised. The contract(s) entered into by the Grantee shall reference this agreement

and reflect the Scope of Work and the Milestones, as revised. The Grantee shall provide Metro’s

Project Manager the opportunity to review and approve draft Consultant contracts prior to

execution of such contracts.

Grantee shall submit to Metro all required deliverables for such Milestone, accompanied by an

invoice Deliverables must be submitted to Metro as outlined in the Milestones, as revised; the

Grantee shall not submit additional deliverables and invoices to Metro for later Milestones until

Metro has reviewed and approved all prior deliverables under paragraph 5 of this Agreement.

5. Metro Responsibilities. Metro’s funding commitment set forth in this Agreement shall be fulfilled solely

through CET funds; no other funds or revenues of Metro shall be used to satisfy or pay any CET grant

commitments. Metro shall facilitate successful implementation of the Project and administration of Grant

Funds as follows:

(a) Advisory Role. The Metro Project Manager shall take an active role as part of the Project Advisory

Team and at the request of the Grantee Project Manager will review and comment on draft project

documents to communicate any concerns prior to the formal submission of the deliverables for

each Milestone.

(b) Review and Approval of Grant Deliverables. Within 15 days after receiving the Grantee submittal

of deliverables as set forth in the Milestones (as revised), Metro’s Project Manager shall review the

deliverables and either approve the submittal, or reply with comments and/or requests for

further documentation or revisions that may be necessary. The Metro Project Manager shall

determine whether the deliverables submitted are satisfactory in meeting the Scope of Work and

the applicable Milestones.

reimburse the Grantee for its eligible expenditures for the applicable deliverable as set forth in

Revised Exhibit C within 30 days following the Metro Project Manager’s approval of deliverables,

invoices and supporting documents.

6. Project Records. The Grantee shall maintain all records and documentation relating to the expenditure of

Grant Funds disbursed by Metro under this Agreement. The work product of Metro’s Grant is a public record

and is subject to public disclosure and review under public records law. Public records requests may also

result in the disclosure of any non-exempt documents related to the project and related support documents as

required by Oregon Law. Records and documents shall be retained by the Grantee for three years from the

date of completion of the Project, expiration of the Agreement or as otherwise required under applicable law,

whichever is later. The Grantee shall provide Metro with such information and documentation as Metro

requires for implementation of the grant process. The Grantee shall establish and maintain books, records,

documents, and other evidence in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, in sufficient

detail to permit Metro or its auditor to verify how the Grant Funds were expended.

7. Audits, Inspections and Retention of Records. Metro, together with its auditors and representatives, shall

have reasonable access to and the right to examine, all Grantee records with respect to all matters covered by

this Agreement during normal business hours upon three business days’ prior written notice to the Grantee.

The representatives shall be permitted to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 3 of 20

Contract No. 936864

2040 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA – Metro & The City of Sherwood Page 4

records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls and other matters covered by this

Agreement. All documents, papers, time sheets, accounting records, and other materials pertaining to costs

incurred in connection with the Project shall be retained by the Grantee and all of their contractors for three

years from the date of completion of the Project, or expiration of the Agreement, whichever is later, to

facilitate any audits or inspection.

8. Term. Unless otherwise terminated under paragraph 9, this Agreement shall be effective on the last

date it is executed by the parties below, and shall be in effect until all Milestones and deliverables have

been completed, all required documentation has been delivered, and all payments have been made as set

forth in the Milestones, as revised.

9. Termination. Metro may terminate this Agreement and cancel any remaining Grant Fund payments

upon a finding by the Metro Chief Operating Officer that the Grantee has abandoned its work on the

Project or is otherwise not satisfying its obligations under this Agreement regarding the requirements of

the grant.

10. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by mutual written agreement of the Parties.

11. Other Agreements. This Agreement does not affect or alter any other agreements between Metro and

the Grantee.

12. Waiver. The Parties hereby waive and release one another for and from any and all claims, liabilities,

or damages of any kind relating to this Agreement or the Grant Funds.

13. Authority. Grantee and Metro each warrant and represent that each has the full power and authority

to enter into and perform this Agreement in accordance with its terms; that all requisite action has been

taken by the Grantee and Metro to authorize the execution of this Agreement; and that the persons signing

this Agreement have full power and authority to sign for the Grantee and Metro, respectively.

14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be

deemed an original and together shall constitute a single document. Electronic signatures, as well as

copies of signatures sent by facsimile or electronic transmission, shall be deemed original signatures for

all purposes and shall be binding on the Parties.

[Signature Page Follows]

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 4 of 20

Contract No. 936864

2040 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA – Metro & The City of Sherwood Page 5

METRO

THE CITY OF SHERWOOD

By: ______________________________________________

By: _________________________________________________

Marissa Madrigal

Grantee Executive Name

Chief Operating Officer

Grantee Executive Title

Date: _____________________________________________

Date: _______________________________________________

Approved as to Form:

Approved for legal sufficiency for the City of

Sherwood:

By:

_________________________________________________

Counsel for the City of Sherwood

By: ______________________________________________

Carrie MacLaren

Metro Attorney

Date: ___________________________________________

Attachments:

Exhibit A – Grant Request

Exhibit B –Request for Proposals

Exhibit C – Schedule of Milestones

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 5 of 20

METRO CONTRACT 936864 - EXHIBIT C

Sherwood West Preliminary Concept Plan Re-Look

Metro Contract 936864 2040 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA – METRO & CITY OF SHERWOOD Page 1

Project Milestones, Deliverables, and Disbursement of Grant Funds

Project milestone and specified grant deliverables

Date Due

Progress Payment

Execution of grant IGA

a) Preparation of project documents and negotiations

b) Signed IGA document

January 31, 2021

Project consultants, contract scoping and final contract

Review and comment on consultant proposals

b) Select consultant team and submit draft contract, scope, schedule and budget for review

Establish revised milestones and deliverables

Finalize and execute consultant contract

January 31, 2021

3-7+

Project milestones to be determined

Council hearings and action

Project financial statement report

$ At least 10% or

20k whichever is

lower

TOTAL GRANT FUNDS:

APPROVED GRANT PROJECT EXPENSE DISTRIBUTION

Changes to the approved expense distribution shown at

right must be approved by Metro through an amendment

of this Exhibit C.

Consultant Fees

Payments to Project Partners

Direct Costs

Other (specify)

TOTAL GRANT FUNDS

GRANT PROJECT COMPLETION REQUIREMENTS

•

All grant project deliverables submitted by grantee and approved by Metro

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 6 of 20

Exhibit C

Continued

Metro Contract 936864 2040 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA – METRO & CITY OF SHERWOOD Page 2

• Final financial report submitted and backup documentation retained on file as appropriate

•

Final reporting on grant performance measures submitted and approved by Metro

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 7 of 20

METRO CONTRACT 936864

EXHIBIT A

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 8 of 20

METRO CONTRACT 936864

EXHIBIT A

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 9 of 20

METRO CONTRACT 936864

EXHIBIT A

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 10 of 20

METRO CONTRACT 936864

EXHIBIT A

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 11 of 20

METRO CONTRACT 936864

EXHIBIT A

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 12 of 20

METRO CONTRACT 936864

EXHIBIT A

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 13 of 20

METRO CONTRACT 936864

EXHIBIT A

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 14 of 20

METRO CONTRACT 936864

EXHIBIT A

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 15 of 20

Email This Preview Save as PDF Print Close Window A▲▼

Metro

Planning and Development

2040 Planning and Development Grants (Cycle 8 -

2020)

Deadline: 4/30/2020

City of Sherwood

Sherwood West Preliminary Concept Plan Re-look

Jump to: Summary Questions Draft Application Short questions

Required Uploads

$ 130,000.00

Requested

$ 13,000 Anticipated contributions from other

sources:

Submitted: 3/12/2020 5:31:48 PM (Pacific)

Project Contact

Julia Hajduk

HajdukJ@SherwoodOregon.gov

Tel: 503

625

4204

Additional Contacts

none entered

City of Sherwood

22560 SW Pine Street

Sherwood, OR 97140

Community Development

Director

Julia Hajduk

hajdukj@sherwoodoregon.gov

Telephone

503

625

4204

Fax

Web

www.sherwoodoregon.gov

Summary Questions

top

1. Brief project description (one-two sentences)

evaluate and update the Sherwood West preliminary concept plan (2015) with the updated information and policies

developed through Sherwood's Comprehensive Plan update process related to Economic Development in addition to

housing.

Draft Application

top

1. Please indicate the grant category for which you are applying:

2. To facilitate scheduling of the pre

application conference, please indicate at least three different dates and

available times that would work for members of your team to attend a one

hour meeting at Metro. Please also

indicate the names and emails of the team members who will attend and the email and phone number of the

person who should be contacted to help schedule the meeting.

3/12 8

5; 3/18 8

5; 3/19 9

12 Julia Hajduk

hajdukj@sherwoodoregon.gov & Erika Palmer

Palmere@sherwoodoregon.gov.

Contact Erika to schedule

625

4208

3. Metro Council district(s) of project. Check all that apply.

✔✔✔✔

Concept Planning

gfedc

Equitable Development

gfedc

Community Engagement

gfedc

District 1

–

Shirley Craddick

gfedc

District 2

–

Christine Lewis

✔✔✔✔

District 3

–

Craig Dirksen

METRO CONTRACT 936864

EXHIBIT A

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 16 of 20

gfedc

District 4

–

Juan Carlos Gonzalez

gfedc

District 5

–

Sam Chase

gfedc

District 6

–

Bob Stacey

Documents Requested *

Required?

Attached Documents

Upload a PDF of your draft application, using the

appropriate template provided for your grant category.

You can find the templates on the program web site

or in the ZoomGrants Library.

✔✔✔✔

Draft application

Application

Upload a PDF of your draft Project Budget, using the

appropriate template provided for your grant category.

You can find the templates on the program web site

or in the ZoomGrants Library.

✔✔✔✔

Budget template (draft)

Short questions

top

1. Please indicate the grant category for which you are applying:

2. What is the location and/or geographic reach of the project? Provide a brief description.

Under the "Required Uploads" tab, please also provide the required location map or maps showing where the project and/or

participating communities are located and project boundaries, if applicable.

The location is referred to as Sherwood West and includes the Urban Reserve area west of Elwert Road, north of 99W and

south of Scholls

Sherwood road.

3. Provide demographic information including race, ethnicity, age, and income of the neighborhood or community

that will be affected by the project. Indicate the data source, and describe how the project geography relates to

the data provided. If appropriate, include not only residential data but also relevant information (even if

anecdotal) regarding local businesses, employers or commercial districts.

In the "Uploads" section of this application, you may include optional info

graphics in the project images upload.

The Sherwood West area is adjacent to the city boundary. During its 125 years of urbanization, Sherwood has experienced

significant growth in both population and physical size. The average annual growth rate from 1990 to 2013 was 8%. For

comparison, Washington County grew at 2.5% annually between 1990

2013.

Sherwood is attracting younger people and more households with children over time. Compared to Washington County,

Sherwood has a greater number of family households (nearly 78%) (Housing Needs Analysis). 75% of the housing stock is

Single

Family Residential, 17% Single

Family Attached, and 8% Mult

family. Average household size 2.89; Households w/

children under 18; 48%; Households w/ a person over 65 19% (US Census). The median household income is $78,355.

Sherwood

’s Largest Industries: Health care and social assistance; Manufacturing; Retail trade; Professional, scientific,

management, and administrative services (Economic Opportunities Analysis).

4. Metro Council district(s) directly impacted by the project. Check all that apply:

5. Indicate which 2040 urban design designations will be part of the focus of this project. Check all that apply.

✔✔✔✔

Concept Planning

gfedc

Equitable Development

gfedc

Community Engagement

gfedc

District 1

Shirley Craddick

gfedc

District 2

Christine Lewis

✔✔✔✔

District 3

Craig Dirksen

gfedc

District 4

Juan Carlos Gonzalez

gfedc

District 5

Sam Chase

gfedc

District 6

Bob Stacey

gfedc

Central City

gfedc

Regional Center

gfedc

Town Center

gfedc

Neighborhood Center

gfedc

Station Community

gfedc

Main Street

gfedc

Corridor

METRO CONTRACT 936864

EXHIBIT A

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 17 of 20

Application ID: 161330

Become a

fan of ZoomGrants™

on Facebook

Problems? Contact us at

Questions@ZoomGrants.com

2002

"ZoomGrants" and the ZoomGrants logo are trademarks of GrantAnalyst.com, LLC.

Logout

Browser

* ZoomGrants™ is not responsible for the content of uploaded documents.

6. Provide a very brief summary describing the project purpose, location and desired outcomes.

evaluate and update the Sherwood West preliminary concept plan (2015) utilizing goals & policies from Sherwood's

updated Comprehensive Plan

gfedc

Employment/Industrial Area

gfedc

Neighborhood

✔✔✔✔

Urban Reserve

Required Uploads

top

Documents Requested *

Required?

Attached Documents

Project narrative: Complete the template using 11

point font. Save the document as a PDF and upload.

Grant application template

Grant application

Final

Project budget table: Complete the Budget Table

using the excel template. Save the table in PDF

format and upload.

budget

Letters of commitment: One required from the

applicant and one from each project partner. See the

grant handbook for more details.

Project location/geographic reach: Provide up to 3

pages of maps (may include text also) that shows

where the project and/or participating communities

are located within the region. Include project

boundaries if applicable. Max. 4MB per doc

Sherwood West map

Sherwood West

City and other UR area context

Project images (optional): If desired, upload a PDF

file of up to 3 pages containing photos, images or

pertinent graphic material. Maximum 4MB per

document.

Resolution of support: Required for Concept Planning

Applications only. See grant handbook for further

details.

Resolution of support

Combined Application PDF: One PDF attachment

combining all application materials into one

document. Maximum 4MB per document (reduce file

size or split into two documents if necessary)

Combined PDF

METRO CONTRACT 936864

EXHIBIT A

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 18 of 20

METRO CONTRACT 936864 - EXHIBIT C

Sherwood West Preliminary Concept Plan Re-Look

Metro Contract 936864 2040 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA – METRO & CITY OF SHERWOOD Page 1

Project Milestones, Deliverables, and Disbursement of Grant Funds

Project milestone and specified grant deliverables

Date Due

Progress Payment

Execution of grant IGA

a) Preparation of project documents and negotiations

b) Signed IGA document

January 31, 2021

Project consultants, contract scoping and final contract

Review and comment on consultant proposals

b) Select consultant team and submit draft contract, scope, schedule and budget for review

Establish revised milestones and deliverables

Finalize and execute consultant contract

January 31, 2021

3-7+

Project milestones to be determined

Council hearings and action

Project financial statement report

$ At least 10% or

20k whichever is

lower

TOTAL GRANT FUNDS:

APPROVED GRANT PROJECT EXPENSE DISTRIBUTION

Changes to the approved expense distribution shown at

right must be approved by Metro through an amendment

of this Exhibit C.

Consultant Fees

Payments to Project Partners

Direct Costs

Other (specify)

TOTAL GRANT FUNDS

GRANT PROJECT COMPLETION REQUIREMENTS

•

All grant project deliverables submitted by grantee and approved by Metro

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 19 of 20

Exhibit C

Continued

Metro Contract 936864 2040 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA – METRO & CITY OF SHERWOOD Page 2

• Final financial report submitted and backup documentation retained on file as appropriate

•

Final reporting on grant performance measures submitted and approved by Metro

Resolution 2021-004, EXH A

January 5, 2021, Page 20 of 20

Ordinance 2020-008, Staff Report

January 5, 2021

Page 1 of 2, with Attachment (127 pgs)

City Council Meeting Date: January 5, 2021

Agenda Item: Public Hearing (First Reading)

TO: Sherwood City Council

FROM: Eric Rutledge, Associate Planner, Planning Staff

Through: Josh Soper, City Attorney, Joseph Gall, ICMA-CM, City Manager and Julia Hajduk,

Community Development Director

SUBJECT: Ordinance 2020-008, Approving annexation of 10.90 acres to the City of Sherwood

and 10.50 acres to Clean Water Services within the Tonquin Employment Area,

comprised of one Tax Lot and the adjacent SW Oregon Street and SW Tonquin Road

right-of-way (First Reading)

Issue:

Shall the City Council approve the proposed annexation (Case File No. LU 2020-010 AN) of 10.90 acres

of land within the Tonquin Employment Area?

Background:

This ordinance was first on the City Council agenda for September 1, 2020. At the request of the applicant,

City Council has continued the first reading of the ordinance several times. Most recently, City Council

continued the first reading to a date certain of January 5, 2021. The continuances were intended to allow

the property owner to review and discuss access and right-of-way alternatives for SW Oregon Street and

SW Tonquin Court. Although the application is now being considered in 2021, the ordinance number was

originally assigned in 2020 and is therefore identified as Ordinance 2020-008.

The site is located along the south side of SW Oregon St. on both sides of SW Tonquin Rd. The property

is currently zoned FD-20 under Washington County and is occupied by the applicant’s industrial business

including an office and shop. If the annexation is approved, the City’s Employment Industrial zoning will be

applied to the property and future development will conform to the EI zone use and development standards.

The property is part of the Tonquin Employment Area (TEA) and was brought into the Urban Growth

Boundary in 2004. The TEA Concept Plan was approved by City Council in 2010 and the TEA Market

Analysis, Business Recruitment Strategy, and Implementation Plan was adopted by City Council resolution

in 2015. Land in the TEA remains under Washington County jurisdiction and cannot be developed with

urban services until annexation to the City. As such, the City has received an annexation petition for 10.90

acres of land in TEA in preparation for future development. If approved, the annexation will bring 10.90

acres of land into the City of Sherwood and 10.50 acres of land into the Clean Water Services District

boundaries.

To date the City has approved four (4) annexations in the TEA totaling approximately 161 acres. Approval

of the subject application will result in approximately 173 acres or 58% of land in the TEA having been

annexed into the City of Sherwood.

Ordinance 2020-008, Staff Report

January 5, 2021

Page 2 of 2, with Attachment (127 pgs)

The applicant is seeking approval of the annexation petition under the procedures of Oregon Senate Bill

1573. Under this method, a vote by the City electorate is not required to approve the annexation as long

as 100% of the land owners have signed the petition and the application meets the approval criteria in

ORS 222.127(2)(a)-(d). The legislative body of the City is responsible for approving or denying such

annexation petitions based on the compliance with local, regional, and state criteria. The approval criteria

for all levels is summarized below:

- Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 222.111 – 222.183

- Metro Code 3.09

- City of Sherwood Comprehensive Plan Chapters 3 and 8

The City of Sherwood receives sanitary sewer treatment and water quality services from Clean Water

Services (CWS). If the annexation is approved, 10.50 acres of land will be added to the CWS district

boundaries as prescribed in ORS 199.510(2)(c). A portion of the subject site is already within the CWS

boundaries which results in a CWS annexation area of 0.40 acres less than the proposed City annexation.

The attached staff report reviews the applicable criteria that must be considered for annexations under the

proposed method and provides a discussion of how the application meets the criteria. Based on this

analysis and findings in the staff report, staff recommends approval of the annexation to the City of

Sherwood and Clean Water Services District.

Alternatives:

If the City Council finds that the proposed annexation does not meet the criteria identified in SB 1573 and

ORS 199.510(2)(c), it could not approve the Ordinance.

Financial Impacts:

The applicant is required to pay 100% of costs associated with the annexation application, including staff

time. The applicant has paid a deposit of $7,500 to initiate this annexation.

Should the Council approve this application, the property would be in need of City services, the cost of

which would be mostly borne by implementing development. The development of the site will require the

extension of City services (transportation, water, sewer, etc.); however, impacts and potential mitigations

would be addressed by future land use applications. In addition, once the property is annexed to the City

it will be subject to the taxes, bonds, and fees assessed by the City of Sherwood.

Recommendation:

Staff respectfully recommends the City Council hold the first public hearing on Ordinance 2020-008 and

approve annexation of 10.90 acres to the City of Sherwood and 10.50 acres to Clean Water Services. A

second reading is scheduled for January 19, 2021.

Exhibits:

1. Staff Report and Exhibits for LU 2020-010 Polley Annexation

City of Sherwood

Staff Repor

t for 21720 SW Oregon St.

Staff Report Date: August 17, 2020

Hearing Date: January 5, 2021

Case File No: LU 2020-010 AN

Signed:

Eric Rutledge, Associate Planner

Proposal: The applicant is seeking approval from the City of Sherwood to annex a 9.53-

acre parcel and 1.37 acres of adjacent right-of-way at 21720 SW Oregon Street in

unincorporated Washington County, Oregon. The total area proposed for annexation is

10.90 acres to the City of Sherwood and 10.50 acres to Clean Water Services. The

applicant is seeking approval of the annexation petition under the procedures of SB 1573

and also requests annexation of the property into Clean Water Services boundary for the

provision of sanitary sewer, stormwater, and surface water management pursuant to ORS

199.510(C).

I. BACKGROUND

A. Applicant: Bruce and Karen Polley

PO Box 1489

Sherwood, OR 97140

Applicant’s Representative.: Mimi Doukas, AICP

AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC

12965 SW Herman Rd, Suite 100

Tualatin OR 97062

B. Location: The site is located at 21720 SW Oregon Street in Unincorporated

Washington County, on the south side of SW Oregon St. and on both sides of SW

Tonquin Rd.

C. Review Type: The Sherwood City Charter requires the electorate of the City to

approve annexations that are passed by the City Council. However, Senate Bill

1573 provides an exception to the final electorate requirement when the

annexation petition is submitted by 100% of the landowners of the property and

when certain criteria are met. Consequently, this application is being processed as

a quasi-judicial action subject to the approval criteria of ORS 222.127(2)(a)-(d). If

the City Council determines that the annexation petition meets the criteria, the

territory is to be annexed to the city by ordinance. The applicant has also requested

annexation into the boundaries of Clean Water Services for the provision of

sanitary sewer, storm and surface water management pursuant to ORS

199.510(2)(c).

D. Public Notice and Hearing: Notice of the City Council hearing on the annexation

was posted on the subject property and in five public locations throughout the City

on August 12, 2020. While ORS only requires mailed notice to property owners

within 250 ft. of the site, mailed notice was provided to property owners within

1,000 feet of the site on August 12, 2020 in accordance with Sherwood’s public

hearing notice requirements. Notice of the hearing was also posted in the August

13 and August 27, 2020 edition of The Times, a local newspaper.

E. Review Criteria: There are three levels of review criteria and requirements for

annexations - Local, Regional and State. The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS

222.111-.183) guide the process for annexations at the state level. The applicant

is requesting approval under the SB 1573 method and is subject to the approval

criteria of ORS 222.127. Annexations proposed within the Metro boundary are also

subject to the approval criteria of Metro Code 3.09. Finally, the annexation must

comply with Chapters 3 and 8 of the City of Sherwood Comprehensive Plan. All

applicable review criteria are addressed below.

F. History: The property is part of the Tonquin Employment Area (TEA) and was

brought into the Urban Growth Boundary in 2004 via Metro Ordinance 04-1040B.

In 2010, the City approved the TEA Concept Plan including the implementing

Comprehensive Plan and Map Amendments. In 2015 the TEA Market Analysis,

Business Recruitment Strategy and Implementation Plan was approved by the City

Council under Resolution 2015-051.

With adoption of the TEA Concept Plan, property within the TEA became eligible

for annexation to the City of Sherwood. To date the City has approved three (3)

annexations in the TEA totaling approximately 133 acres. The City currently has

two annexation petitions under review, the subject application representing 10.90

acres and adjacent Kerr Annexation (LU 2020-012) representing 29.61 acres. If

both are approved, approximately 173 acres of land in the TEA will have been

annexed into the City of Sherwood, representing approximately 58% of the total

land area.

G. Site Characteristics and Existing Zoning: The site is currently occupied by an

industrial business and according to assessment records contains a multipurpose

building, machine shed, and detached carport. A manufactured home is also

located on the site and is used as the offices for the business. No residents

currently live on the site.

The property is approximately 9.23 acres in size and fronts SW Oregon Street and

SW Tonquin Road, with a small portion of the overall tax lot (0.2 acres) located on

the southwest side of SW Tonquin Road. The 0.2 acres is located entirely within

the 100-year floodplain of Rock Creek. The property on the northeast site of SW

Tonquin Rd. is currently in use by the applicant for operation of an industrial

business as referenced above. The remainder of the property is covered by

grassland and forest, including upland and riparian habitat.

The property is zoned Future Development 20-Acre District (FD-20) by

Washington County. The FD-20 District applies to the unincorporated lands added

to the urban growth boundary by Metro through a Major or Legislative Amendment

process after 1998. The zoning encourages limited interim uses until the

comprehensive planning for future urban development of the area is complete.

H. Future Zoning: The subject site is within the Tonquin Employment Area, which has

been incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Upon annexation to the

City of Sherwood, the City’s Employment Industrial (EI) zoning will be applied to

the site. The EI zone classification was determined to be the most suitable zoning

for the area through the TEA Concept Plan and targets the Clean Technology,

Technology and Advanced Manufacturing, and Outdoor Gear and Active Wear

industries. The EI zone will provide employment areas that are suitable for and

attractive to these industries.

II. AFFECTED AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS

Agencies Comments: Notice was provided to the following agencies on July 27, 2020:

NW Natural, Portland General Electric, Clean Water Services, Kinder Morgan, Pride

Disposal, Raindrops 2 Refuge, Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, Portland Western

Railroad, Bonneville Power Administration, Sherwood School District, TriMet, Metro,

Oregon Department of Transportation, Washington County Land Use & Transportation,

Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Sherwood Police Department, and the United States

Postal Service.

Responses were received from City of Sherwood Engineering and Tualatin Valley Fire &

Rescue. Summaries are provided below and full comments are included as exhibits to

the report. Sherwood Police Department, BPA, and ODOT Outdoor Advertising Sign

Program acknowledged the proposal and did not have any comments or concerns.

Sherwood Engineering Department – Bob Galati, City of Sherwood Engineer,

provided the following comments with regard to the proposed annexation (Exhibit D):

Transportation - Generally speaking, the site currently has access to SW Oregon

Street and SW Tonquin Road and meets annexation requirements for transportation.

Sanitary sewer - Generally speaking, the site currently has access to public sanitary

sewer due to the ability to extend public sanitary mainlines within public right-of-way,

even though the distance is significant (1,420 feet).

Storm sewer - Generally speaking, the site currently has access to public storm water

systems due to the ability to extend public storm water mainlines within public right-

of-way to the Rock Creek stream corridor.

Water - Generally speaking, the site currently has access to public water systems due

to the ability to connect to existing public water systems located within public road

right-of-way which fronts the site.

Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue – Tom Mooney, Deputy Fire Marshal, provided

comments via email (Exhibit E). The comments affirm the territory is within the

boundary of TVF&R and is served by Station 33 located on SW Oregon St. In addition,

Station 34 in Tualatin and Station 35 in King City are in proximity to the subject site.

Service will not change with annexation.

Public Comments

No public comments were received on the application.

III. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR ANNEXATION AND BOUNDARY

CHANGE

A. State Standards

Oregon Revised Statute 222 authorizes and guides the process for annexations of

unincorporated and adjacent territories into the City boundaries. The applicant is

requesting annexation utilizing the procedures outlined in SB 1573 or ORS 222.127.

Under this method, the application is required to comply approval criteria of ORS

222.127(2)(a)-(d). When the legislative body of the City determines that the annexation

petition meets the criteria, the territory is to be annexed to the city by ordinance. Assuming

the City Council determines that the annexation petition meets the prescribed criteria, the

annexation ordinance and required notification to the Oregon Secretary of State, Oregon

Department of Revenue and other affected will be prepared for Council approval.

Senate Bill 1573, Section 2 (ORS 222.127)

(1) This section applies to a city whose laws require a petition proposing

annexation of territory to be submitted to the electors of the city.

(2) Notwithstanding a contrary provision of the city charter or a city ordinance,

upon receipt of a petition proposing annexation of territory submitted by

all owners of land in the territory, the legislative body of the city shall annex

the territory without submitting the proposal to the electors of the city if:

The annexation petition is proposed by Bruce and Karen Polley, representing

100% of the property owners of the ±9.53-acre property. The signed petition is

included in Exhibit G.

(a) The territory is included within an urban growth boundary adopted by

the city or Metro, as defined in ORS 197.015;

The territory proposed for annexation is located within the Urban Growth

Boundary and the adopted TEA concept planning area. The TEA was

brought into the Sherwood Urban Growth Boundary in 2004 via Metro

Ordinance 04-1040B to provide for needed industrial land.

(b) The territory is, or upon annexation of the territory into the city will be,

subject to the acknowledged comprehensive plan of the city;

In 2010 the City approved the TEA Concept Plan and implementing

Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map Amendments via Ordinance 2010-014.

The 9.53 acre parcel is located within the TEA and subject to the City’s

Comprehensive Plan and Map.

limits or is separated from the city limits only by a public right-of-way

or body or water; and

The territory is located contiguous to the city limits along two property lines.

The east property line is shared with 21600 SW Oregon St. (Tax ID

2S128C000600) which was annexed into City in 2019. The northwest

property line abuts SW Oregon St. and the parcels located across the right-

of-way are also located within the City of Sherwood (Exhibit A).

(d) The proposal conforms to all other requirements of the city’s

ordinances.

The annexation petition was prepared in accordance with the City’s

requirements and all information required in the City’s “Checklist for

Annexation Request to the City of Sherwood” has been submitted by the

applicant. As demonstrated in this report, the proposal conforms to the

applicable ordinances of the City including the City’s adopted

Comprehensive Plan.

(3) The territory to be annexed under this section includes any additional

territory described in ORS 222.111 (1) that must be annexed in order to

locate infrastructure and right-of-way access for services necessary for

development of the territory described in subsection (2) of this section at

a density equal to the average residential density within the annexing city.

The total land area of the annexation is 10.90 acres which includes the 9.53

acre Polley property and 1.37 acres of the adjacent right-of-way (SW

Oregon St. and SW Tonquin Rd.). Local infrastructure and right-of-way

access are available and additional territory under this section is not

required.

(4) When the legislative body of the city determines that the criteria described

in subsection (2) of this section apply to territory proposed for annexation,

the legislative body may declare that the territory described in subsections

(2) and (3) of this section is annexed to the city by an ordinance that

contains a description of the territory annexed.

A draft ordinance including a description of the territory has been provided

and can be adopted by the City Council if it determines the applicable

criteria of the annexation request has been satisfied.

Oregon Revised Statue Chapter 199.510 Financial effects of transfer or

withdrawal; exceptions (Clean Water Services Boundary)

***

(2)(c) When a city receives services from a district and is part of that district, any

territory thereafter annexed to the city shall be included in the boundaries of the

district and shall be subject to all liabilities of the district in the same manner and

to the same extent as other territory included in the district.

***

The City of Sherwood is within the jurisdictional boundary of Clean Water Services, which

provides sanitary sewer and water quality services to urban Washington County.

Approximately 10.50 acres of the territory is not currently within the CWS boundary but

as authorized by state statute above, will also be annexed into the CWS service area

upon annexation to the City. The difference between the City annexation and CWS

annexation is approximately 0.40 acres, as depicted in the legal descriptions and maps

(Exhibit B).

B. Regional Standards

In addition to the state requirements addressed above, the Oregon legislature has

directed Metro to establish annexation criteria that must be used by all cities within the

Metro boundary. The City of Sherwood and the subject site is in the Metro boundary and

subject to the criteria of Metro Code 3.09 (Local Government Boundary Changes).

3.09.050 Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions Other Than Expedited

Decisions

A. The following requirements for hearings on petitions operate in addition to

requirements for boundary changes in ORS Chapters 198, 221 and 222 and

the reviewing entity's charter, ordinances or resolutions.

B. Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a hearing the reviewing entity

shall make available to the public a report that addresses the criteria in

subsection (d) and includes the following information:

1. The extent to which urban services are available to serve the affected

territory, including any extra territorial extensions of service;

Urban services are defined in the Metro Code as “sanitary sewers, water, fire

protection, parks, open space, recreation and streets, roads and mass

transit.” All required urban services are available to serve the territory as

described in the City of Sherwood Engineering Comments (Exhibit D) and

summarized below.

Public improvements that are required to serve the site and the larger TEA

have been identified in the TEA Concept Plan and will be constructed before

or in conjunction with site development. In addition, the public improvements

necessary to accommodate development of the TEA have been assumed in

the City’s Water System Master Plan, Storm Water Master Plan, and Sanitary

Sewer Master Plan.

Water - Per City Engineering Department, the proposed annexation site has

direct access to public water systems in the form of a 12-inch diameter water

line located within Oregon Street. It is anticipated that internal public water

systems will need to be looped to provide the system redundancy required

by the City.

Sewer - Per the City Engineering Department, the nearest public sanitary

sewer system is located within the right-of-way of the Oregon

Street/Murdock Road roundabout. This point is approximately 380 feet

southwest of the major lot nearest site property corner located along Oregon

Street. Access to existing public sanitary sewer facilities would require the

construction of 1,420 feet of public sanitary sewer mainline along Oregon

Street. The additional distance is necessary to meet the “to and through”

requirement for providing public facilities to upstream adjacent development

lands.

The existing downstream portion of the public sanitary sewer connection

point resides in a public utility easement dedicated to the City from Allied

Systems Company. Connection to the downstream system would require

dedication of another public utility easement from a private entity, which is

not in compliance with annexation requirements.

The project site is not within the Clean Water Services County Service

District. ORS 199.510(2)(c) stipulates that when a city receives services

from a district, such as Clean Water Services, the territory annexed to the

city is also automatically added to the boundaries of the service district.

Storm Drainage - Per City Engineering Department, the majority of the site

is between elevation 206 and 138. The Oregon Street frontage has

elevations of between 206 and 138. The southeast corner of the site sits at

elevation 192. Provision of a storm water treatment facility should be placed

at the low end of the site, and would discharge to the Rock Creek stream

corridor across SW Tonquin Road.

The nearest existing public storm water system is located within Oregon

Street along the northern edge. It is a 12-inch diameter line with flow

through catch basins, and is sized to serve the Oregon Street impervious

surface area. This line is not sized to provide service to adjacent

development areas.

To provide service to the site, a new public storm water trunk line would

need to be constructed within the SW Oregon Street and SW Tonquin Road

right-of-way, and extended to a discharge point on the Rock Creek stream

corridor. This trunk line would need to be sized to provide adequate

capacity to serve adjacent downstream and upstream development areas.

The storm water system would need to be designed to meet

hydromodification requirements, as specified by CWS.

City GIS information indicates that the lower portion of the site adjacent to

SW Tonquin Road/SW Oregon Street intersection is within the 100-year

floodplain. Generally, design standards don’t allow development of

stormwater quality facilities within the 100-year floodplain.

Transportation - Per City Engineering Department, a high-level

transportation analysis was performed as part of the Tonquin Employment

Area (TEA) Concept Plan, which dates back more than 9-years to 2010. As

stated in the Concept Plan Report, the transportation portion of the plan was

not forecasted to develop as an urban industrial area in the year 2020

forecasts that were utilized to develop the Sherwood and Washington

County TSP’s. The land use forecasts were used to develop the 2030 and

2035 forecasts for Metro RTP updates.

The proposed site development plans show that the subject site has access

to SW Oregon Street and SW Tonquin Road. As such the site meets the

requirements for annexation.

The City’s TSP and CIP has identified a roundabout improvement for the

intersection of SW Oregon Street and SW Tonquin Road (Project No. D3).

Previous traffic studies have shown that the current intersection does not

meet mobility targets and is marginal in meeting design safety

requirements. It can be anticipated that dedication of right-of-way to

accommodate the roundabout CIP will be required.

Site access is shown as being off SW Oregon Street near the northeast

corner of the site. Access spacing standards will have to meet WACO

requirements for access spacing onto SW Oregon Street. An un-named

public road located at the south end of the site is a possible second access

point to the site.

Parks and Recreation - The City of Sherwood owns and maintains over 60

acres of parks in addition to 300 acres of greenways and natural areas.

Dedication and construction of new parks and trails generally occurs with

site development or with system development charges required of new

development. Maintenance and operations of the park system is funded out

of the General Fund. An annexation alone does not trigger any park

dedication requirement; however, future development will be required to

comply with applicable park and open space requirements in the City’s

Comprehensive Plan and development code. Applicable Park SDC’s will

also be collected at the time of site development.

Fire - The territory is within the boundary of the Tualatin Valley Fire and

Rescue District and comments on the application were provided by Tom

Mooney, Deputy Fire Marshal. The territory to be annexed is served by

Station 33 located on SW Oregon Street. Station 34 in Tualatin and Station

35 in King City are also in close proximity. The existing fire services

provided by TVF&R will not be impacted by the annexation.

Police – Based on online County records, the subject site is within the

Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District (ESPD). Upon

annexation to the City of Sherwood, the City will withdraw the territory from

the ESPD in accordance with ORS 222.520 and 222.120(5). Once the

property is withdrawn, the ESPD’s tax levy will no longer apply and the City

of Sherwood Police Department will serve the site. Police Chief Groth

acknowledged the proposed annexation and did not state any comments or

concerns.

2. Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of

the affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party; and

As discussed above, police jurisdiction for the site is currently with the

Washington County ESPD and will be withdrawn from the service district upon

annexation to the City. The City of Sherwood Police Department will serve as

the new necessary party for police services. The territory is not anticipated to

be removed from the service boundary of any other necessary parties.

3. The proposed effective date of the boundary change.

The effective date of annexation will be determined after Council adoption of

the ordinance and filing of the boundary change approval with the Secretary of

State, Department of Revenue, and other affected agencies.

C. The person or entity proposing the boundary change has the burden to

demonstrate that the proposed boundary change meets the applicable

criteria.

The applicant has provided all of the required information to process the boundary

change, including a certified petition and legal descriptions. The applicant’s

narrative (Exhibit G) provides a discussion of how the proposal meets the

applicable criteria. City Council is the local decision authority on the application

and will determine whether the approval criteria have been satisfied.

D. To approve a boundary change, the reviewing entity shall apply the criteria

and consider the factors set forth in Subsections (D) and (E) of Section

3.09.045.

These criteria are evaluated immediately below.

Metro Criteria § 3.09.045 (D)

1. Find that the change is consistent with expressly applicable provisions in:

a. Any applicable urban service agreement adopted pursuant to ORS

195.065;

Comprehensive planning within the Metro UGB is coordinated between

counties and cities through Urban Planning Area Agreements (UPAAs). The

subject property is included under the Washington County / Sherwood UPAA

which is included as part of Exhibit G. Under the UPAA, the City is responsible

for comprehensive planning and public facilities planning for areas outside City

limits but inside the UGB. The City is responsible for providing water, sanitary

sewer, storm sewer and transportation facilities within the UPAA, except when

a facility is provided by another jurisdiction through an intergovernmental

agreement. After annexation the territory will be served by City facilities

consistent with the TEA Concept Plan and UPAA.

b. Any applicable annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205

ORS 195.205 allows for a vote on annexation plans by the electorate. While

Sherwood voters have already approved annexations proposed within this area

of the UGB under Measure No. 34-202, the application is being processed

under SB 1573. SB 1573 does not require a vote by the electorate under ORS

195.205 and this criterion is not applicable.

c. Any applicable cooperative planning agreement adopted pursuant to

ORS 195.020(2) between the affected entity and a necessary party

ORS 195.020(2) requires counties to enter into cooperative agreements with

each special district that provides an urban service within the boundaries of the

county or metropolitan district. Since the City receives sewer treatment and

water quality services from CWS, the property will be served by CWS upon

annexation and the existing cooperate agreement between the jurisdictions will

not be impacted. The annexation will result in the removal of the property from

the Washington County ESPD and incorporation into the Sherwood Police

service boundary. The existing mutual aid agreement between Washington

County Sheriff and Sherwood Police will not be impacted by the annexation.

Finally, the territory is in the TVF&R service district which will not change upon

annexation.

d. Any applicable public facility plan adopted pursuant to a Statewide

planning goal on public facilities and services; and

The TEA Concept Plan incorporated the analysis and assumptions of the

City’s Transportation System Plan and master water, sanitary sewer, and

storm water plans. The concept plan was approved by City Council in 2010

and was found to be consistent the Statewide Planning Goals and applicable

public facility plans. After annexation, the property will be served by public

facilities consistent with the TEA concept plan and City master plans. The

discussions and findings in this report demonstrate the proposed annexation

can feasibly comply with applicable plans.

e. Any applicable comprehensive plan; and

Compliance with the local Comprehensive Plan is discussed further in this

report under the “Local Standards” section.

f. Any applicable concept plan.

Compliance with the Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan is discussed

further in this report under the “Local Standards” section.

2. Consider whether the boundary change would:

a. Promote the timely, orderly and economic provision of public facilities

and services;

As described in the agency comments (Exhibits D & E) and in this report, the

annexation area is currently served or can be served by the necessary public

facilities and services in a timely and orderly manner. The site has frontage on

SW Oregon St. and SW Tonquin Rd. with utilities available adjacent to the site

or within a short distance from the site. The required public and franchise

utilities can be located within the adjacent right-of-way(s) and extended to serve

the site. In addition, the necessary upgrades to existing facilities have been

identified in adopted plans including the Tonquin Employment Area Concept

Plan. Upgrades to these utilities will be studied in more detail when a

development application is submitted, and if needed, required to be paid for by

the development. Any applicable SDCs will be collected at the time of

development. Finally, public services such as police and fire have also been

demonstrated to serve the site upon annexation in a timely and orderly way.

b. Affect the quality and quantity of urban services; and

The Metro code defines urban services as sanitary sewer, water, fire protection,

parks, open space, recreation, and streets, roads, and mass transit. While the

demand on urban services will be increased, the industrial development that

follows annexation will pay one-time SDCs and ongoing property taxes and

utility fees. Therefore, the annexation is not anticipated to negatively impact the

quality and quantity of urban services. Each urban service is discussed in more

detail below:

Sanitary sewer and water – As discussed in the Engineering Comments, the

site has access to an existing water main located in SW Oregon St. A public

sanitary sewer main is located at the SW Oregon St. and SW Murdock Rd.

roundabout. An extension of this line will be required to serve the site and those

further up Oregon St. to the north.

Streets, roads, and mass transit – The site abuts existing public roads in good

condition. Annexation will not immediately impact these areas and road

improvements will be required in conformance with City and County standards

at the time of development. It is anticipated that upon development of the site,

right-of-way dedication to accommodate a new roundabout at SW Oregon St.

and SW Tonquin Rd. will be acquired.

Mass transit will not be directly affected by the annexation; however, with

additional individuals/employees comes additional demand on the transit

system and increased opportunities for better transit service to serve the

existing and future populations.

Parks, open space, and recreation – Dedication and construction of new parks

and trails generally occurs with site development or with SDCs required of new

development. Park maintenance and operations is funded out of the General

Fund.

Once annexed into the City, the site will be required to comply with any

applicable park and open space requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and

development code. The Ice-Age Tonquin Trail is planned to run along SW

Tonquin Rd. and SW Oregon St. along the site frontage.

While it is anticipated that future employees in the TEA will utilize the City’s

park system, the demand will not negatively impact the quality or quantity of

the service. Development of the site may also provide opportunities for new

parks and trails such as the Ice-Age Tonquin Trail. By building out the planned

park system, existing and future Sherwood residents and employees will

benefit.

Fire protection – the property is currently served by TVF&R and will continue

to be served by the district after annexation.

c. Eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services.

The annexed territory will be served by public facilities and services in

accordance with the UPAA and City of Sherwood master plans. Upon

annexation the property will be removed from the Washington County ESPD

and will receive police services from Sherwood Police. No duplication of

services will be created as a result of the annexation.

Metro Criteria § 3.09.045 (E)

A city may not annex territory that lies outside the UGB, except that it may

annex a lot or parcel that lies partially within and partially outside the UGB.

The proposed annexation territory lies entirely within the UGB.

C. Local Standards

Under the Washington County / Sherwood UPAA the City is responsible for

comprehensive planning land within the “Urban Planning Area” which includes the subject

site. Chapter 8 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan addresses Urban Growth Boundary

Additions and includes policy and implementation direction for the TEA. Chapter 3 of the

City’s Comprehensive Plan addresses Growth Management and is also applicable to the

site and proposed annexation. As discussed below, the proposal is consistent with

Chapters 3 and 8 of the Comprehensive Plan. If the annexation is approved, the EI zoning

will be applied to the property. Future development will be reviewed for compliance with

the Sherwood Zoning & Community Development code at the time of development.

City of Sherwood Comprehensive

Chapter 3 Growth Management

Section B.1 Policy Goal

To adopt and implement a growth management policy which will

accommodate growth consistent with growth limits, desired

population densities, land carrying capacity, environmental quality

and livability.

Section B.2 Policy Objectives

a. Focus growth into areas contiguous to existing development

rather than "leap frogging” over developable property.

The subject site located at the western boundary of the TEA at the

corner of SW Oregon St. and SW Tonquin Rd. Adjacent lands to

the east and north/west (across SW Tonquin Rd.) are currently

within city limits. Annexation of the parcel will allow orderly

expansion of the city boundary and extension of public services

without leap frogging other developable property. Annexation will

also allow properties in the interior of the TEA to be eligible for

annexation as the city boundary shifts to include the subject site.

b. Encourage development within the present city limits,

especially on large passed-over parcels that are available.

The subject site was brought into the UGB in 2004 as part of the TEA

in order to meet local and regional industrial development needs over

a 20-year planning horizon. The TEA was envisioned as a unique

employment area in the City with target industries and jobs.

Annexation of the parcel will provide new land zoned Employment

Industrial while allowing properties zoned Light Industrial and

General Industrial to serve businesses suited for those zones

elsewhere in the City. Given the need for different types of industrial

space, the annexation of this parcel will not significantly affect the

ability for existing parcels inside the City limits to develop.

c. Encourage annexation inside the UGB where services are

available.

The area to be annexed is in the UGB and services are available to

be extended into the area, as described in the agency comments and

throughout this report.

d. When designating urban growth areas, consider lands with

poorer agricultural soils before prime agricultural lands.

This is a criterion that Metro considered in its decision to expand the

UGB. Any land designated urban reserve and then brought into the

UGB has already undergone extensive analysis on the suitability of

the soils in comparison to other locations in the region. This criterion

has been met.

e. Achieve the maximum preservation of natural features.

The proposal is for annexation of the property into the City of

Sherwood and CWS boundaries. After annexation, preservation of

the natural features on the site will be required in accordance with

City, CWS, and applicable state and federal regulations. The 0.2

acres of the property on the south/west side of SW Tonquin Rd. is

located within the 100-year floodplain of Rock Creek. The property

also contains Regionally Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat as

determined classified by Metro. Natural resource protection

standards are generally reviewed and approved with site

development. The applicant will be required to show compliance with

natural resource regulations through a future land use application.

f. Provide proper access and traffic circulation to all new

development.

The property is located at the corner of SW Oregon St. and SW

Tonquin Rd. The TEA Concept Plan and TEA Implementation Plan

provide conceptual locations of new transportation facilities. A new

street right-of-way (SW Tonquin Ct.) is shown in the vicinity of the

site’s east property line and is required to provide access to interior

lots of the TEA. Final access points and vehicular circulation patterns

will be determined at the time of site development and will be

required to comply with the City’s transportation and engineering

design standards.

g. Establish policies for the orderly extension of community

services and public facilities to areas where new growth is to be

encouraged, consistent with the ability of the community to

provide necessary services. New public facilities should be

available in conjunction with urbanization in order to meet

future needs. The City, Washington County, and special service

districts should cooperate in the development of a capital

improvements program in areas of mutual concern. Lands

within the urban growth boundary shall be available for urban

development concurrent with the provision of the key urban

facilities and services.

This is a goal that is achieved through concept planning and public

facility planning for new urban areas. This was done concurrent with

the TEA Concept Plan. Annexation and development of the site will

implement the provision of public facilities as envisioned by these

plans.

h. Provide for phased and orderly transition from rural to

suburban or urban uses.

The proposed site is a logical progression of employment industrial

development in this area. The TEA Concept Plan was developed to

ensure that the urbanization of this area was orderly and met the

needs of the community. Annexation of the parcel will represent

implementation of the territory’s planned transition from a rural to

industrial use. As described in this report, public facilities are

available to serve the site and will be designed and constructed with

site development.

City of Sherwood Comprehensive

Chapter 3 Growth Management

Section F Growth Management Policy

The following policies and strategies are established for the

management of urban growth in the Planning Area.

Growth Areas

Policy 5 - Changes in the City limits may be proposed by

the City, County, special districts or individuals in

conformance with City policies and procedures for the

review of annexation requests and County procedures for

amendment of its comprehensive plan.

The proposed annexation has been initiated by an individual,

the property owners, in conformance with applicable City

policies and procedures.

Policy 6 - The City will coordinate with Washington

County policies and procedures governing the

conversion of urbanizable land to urban land. Such

policies shall be included in the Washington County-

Sherwood Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA).

Specifically, the City will consider whether proposals to

annex to the City include lands which meet one or more

of the following criteria: …

The property covered by the Washington County / Sherwood

UPAA and is designated as part of the “Urban Planning Area”.

As described in this report, the City is responsible for

comprehensive planning and the provision of public services

in the area. The application been transmitted to the County for

review, in accordance with the Washington County /

Sherwood UPAA. No County comments were received on the

proposal.

Policy 7 - All new development must have access to

adequate urban public sewer and water service.

Once annexed, the area will be in the City and Clean Water

Services district boundaries and will have access to urban

public sewer and water. The required extensions of these

public facilities will occur after annexation but prior to or with

site development. The City’s water and sewer master plans

have accounted for the demands that will be created by the

TEA including the subject site. Adequate service is available

or can be achieved through implementation of the plans.

City of Sherwood Comprehensive

Chapter 8 Urban Growth Boundary Additions

Section D.4 Tonquin Employment Area

Implementation

1. The City of Sherwood shall amend the Zoning and Community

Development Code to include an Employment Industrial zone

that implements the goals and policies in this section.

The City of Sherwood has already amended the Zoning and

Community Development Code to include an Employment Industrial

(EI) zone through Ordinance 2010-014.

2. The Employment Industrial zone may be applied only to those

properties within city limits, or upon their annexation to the city.

The property is currently zoned FD-20 under Washington County

and once annexed, will be zoned EI under the City of Sherwood.

IV. RECOMMENDATION

This staff report provides a review and analysis of the applicable criteria for annexation.

It is staff’s recommendation, based on the criteria in Senate Bill 1573, ORS 199.510(2)(c),

Metro Code 3.09 and the City’s policies in the Comprehensive Plan and Tonquin

Employment Area Concept Plan, that the annexation petition (LU 2020-010 AN Polley),

be approved by the City Council.

V. EXHIBITS

A. Map of Project Area

B. Legal Description of Area to Be Annexed

C. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map adopted via Ord. 2010-014

D. Sherwood Engineering Department Comment Letter

E. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Comments

F. Department of Revenue Preliminary Approval Letter

G. Applicant’s Submittal

OREGON

MURDOCK

TONQUIN

2S128C000500

9.23 AC

City of Sherwood

Date: 8/7/2020

0 400200

Feet

Map data provided by METRO and the City of Sherwood. The

City of Sherwood's infrastructure records,drawings, and other

documents have been gathered over many years, using many

different formats and standards. While the data provided is

generally believed to be accurate, occasionally it proves to be

Legend

Subject Site

Incorporated to City of Sherwood

Taxlots

Unincorporated Washington County

City of Sherwood September 2010

Tonquin Employment Area: Preferred Concept Plan Report City Council Review Draft Page 58

Figure VI-1: Proposed Zoning

To: Eric Rutledge, Associate Planner

From: Bob Galati P.E., City Engineer

Project: Polley Annexation (LU 2020-010 AN)

Date: July 28, 2020

Engineering staff has reviewed the information provided for the above referenced private

development project. Final construction plans will need to meet the standards established by

the City of Sherwood Engineering Department and Public Works Department, Clean Water

Services (CWS) and Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R), in addition to requirements

established by other jurisdictional agencies providing land use comments. City of Sherwood

Engineering Department comments are as follows:

General Observations

The project site (2S128C000500) is located at 21720 SW Oregon Street and is approximately

9.23 acres is size. The lot fronts SW Oregon Street and SW Tonquin Road, with a small

portion of the overall tax lot (0.2 acres) bifurcated across SW Tonquin Road.

The proposed site development does not include any improvements shown for this bifurcated

portion of the overall site.

Transportation

A high level transportation analysis was performed as part of the Tonquin Employment Area

(TEA) Concept Plan, which dates back more than 9-years to 2010. As stated in the Concept

Plan Report, the transportation portion of the plan was not forecasted to develop as an urban

industrial area in the year 2020 forecasts that were utilized to develop the Sherwood and

Washington County TSP’s. The land use forecasts were used to develop the 2030 and 2035

forecasts for Metro RTP updates.

The proposed site development plans show that the subject site has access to SW Oregon

Street and SW Tonquin Road. As such the site meets the requirements for annexation.

The City’s TSP and CIP has identified a roundabout improvement for the intersection of SW

Oregon Street and SW Tonquin Road (Project No. D3). Previous traffic studies have shown

that the current intersection does not meet mobility targets and is marginal in meeting design

safety requirements. It can be anticipated that dedication of right-of-way to accommodate the

roundabout CIP will be required.

Site access is shown as being off SW Oregon Street near the northeast corner of the site.

Access spacing standards will have to meet WACO requirements for access spacing onto SW

Oregon Street. An un-named public road located at the south end of the site is a possible

second access point to the site.

Annexation Conclusion: Generally speaking, the site currently has access to SW Oregon

Street and SW Tonquin Road and meets annexation requirements for transportation.

Sanitary Sewer

The nearest public sanitary sewer system is located with the right-of-way of the Oregon

Street/Murdock Road roundabout. This point is approximately 380 feet southwest of the major

lot nearest site property corner located along Oregon Street. Access to existing public sanitary

sewer facilities would require the construction of 1,420 feet of public sanitary sewer mainline

along Oregon Street. The additional distance is necessary to meet the “to and through”

requirement for providing public facilities to upstream adjacent development lands.

The existing downstream portion of the public sanitary sewer connection point resides in a

public utility easement dedicated to the City from Allied Systems Company. Connection to the

downstream system would require dedication of another public utility easement from a private

entity, which is not in compliance with annexation requirements.

Annexation Conclusion: Generally speaking, the site currently has access to public sanitary

sewer due to the ability to extend public sanitary mainlines within public right-of-way, even

though the distance is significant (1,420 feet).

Storm Sewer

The majority of the site is between elevation 206 and 138. The Oregon Street frontage has

elevations of between 206 and 138. The southeast corner of the site sits at elevation 192.

Provision of a storm water treatment facility should be placed at the low end of the site, and

would discharge to the Rock Creek stream corridor across SW Tonquin Road.

The nearest existing public storm water system is located within Oregon Street along the

northern edge. It is a 12-inch diameter line with flow through catch basins, and is sized to

serve the Oregon Street impervious surface area. This line is not sized to provide service to

adjacent development areas.

To provide service to the site, a new public storm water trunk line would need to be constructed

within the SW Oregon Street and SW Tonquin Road right-of-way, and extended to a discharge

point on the Rock Creek stream corridor. This trunk line would need to be sized to provide

adequate capacity to serve adjacent downstream and upstream development areas.

The storm water system would need to be designed to meet hydromodification requirements,

as specified by CWS.

City GIS information indicates that the lower portion of the site adjacent to SW Tonquin

Road/SW Oregon Street intersection is within the 100-year floodplain. Generally, design

standards don’t allow development of stormwater quality facilities within the 100-year

floodplain.

Annexation Conclusion: Generally speaking, the site currently has access to public storm

water systems due to the ability to extend public storm water mainlines within public right-of-

way to the Rock Creek stream corridor.

Water

The proposed annexation site has direct access to public water systems in the form of a 12-

inch diameter water line located within Oregon Street. It is anticipated that internal public water

systems will need to be looped to provide the system redundancy required by the City.

Annexation Conclusion: Generally speaking, the site currently has access to public water

systems due to the ability to connect to existing public water systems located within public road

right-of-way which fronts the site.

From: Mooney, Thomas A.

To: Eric Rutledge

Subject: Re: Annexation Notice - Request for Comment (LU 2020-010 AN Polley)

Date: Friday, August 7, 2020 3:04:46 PM

Attachments: image001.jpg

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you

are expecting this email and/or know the content is safe.

Yes that still applies.

Thanks

Tom Mooney, MIAAI-CFI

Deputy Fire Marshal | Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue

Direct: 503-259-1419

www.tvfr.com

From: Eric Rutledge <RutledgeE@SherwoodOregon.gov>

Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 3:03:36 PM

To: Mooney, Thomas A. <Thomas.Mooney@tvfr.com>

Subject: RE: Annexation Notice - Request for Comment (LU 2020-010 AN Polley)

***The sender is from outside TVF&R – Do not click on links or attachments unless you are sure they

are safe***

Hi Tom,

Any comments on this application? Here’s what we have for fire from a previous report that likely

applies:

Fire The territory is within the boundary of the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue

District, which is served by Station 33 located on SW Oregon Street. Station 35 in

King City and Station 34 in Tualatin are also in close proximity. This will not change

with annexation.

Thanks,

Eric Rutledge

City of Sherwood

Associate Planner

rutledgee@sherwoodoregon.gov

Desk 503.625.4242

Cell 971.979.2315

Covid-19 Update: The City's Planning Department is fully operational, however, with limited face

to face contact. We are processing permits via email/phone where possible and by appointment

when "in person" interaction is required. Please stay safe and healthy.

From: Eric Rutledge

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 8:37 AM

To: Bryan_Robb@co.washington.or.us; d5b@nwnatural.com; r2g@nwnatural.com;

henry.english@pgn.com; Travis Smallwood <Travis.Smallwood@pgn.com>; Jose Marquez

<Jose.Marquez@pgn.com>; Jackie Humphreys <HumphreysJ@CleanWaterServices.org>;

spieringm@CleanWaterServices.org; Rolph, Kevin <Kevin_Rolph@kindermorgan.com>; Kristen

Tabscott <kTabscott@pridedisposal.com>; raindrops2refuge@gmail.com; Larry_Klimek@fws.gov;

mwerner@gwrr.com; Clark,James L (BPA) - TERR-CHEMAWA <jlclark@bpa.gov>;

jerose@sherwood.k12.or.us; pjohanson@sherwood.k12.or.us; tumpj@trimet.org;

baldwinb@trimet.org; DevelopmentReview@trimet.org; michaela.skiles@oregonmetro.gov;

landusenotifications@oregonmetro.gov; kurt.A.MOHS@odot.state.or.us; HENDRICKSON Jill M

<Jill.M.HENDRICKSON@odot.state.or.us>; ODOT_R1_DevRev

<ODOT_R1_DevRev@odot.state.or.us>; Naomi Vogel <Naomi_Vogel@co.washington.or.us>;

stephen_roberts@co.washington.or.us; Theresa Cherniak

<Theresa_Cherniak@co.washington.or.us>; Tom Mooney <thomas.mooney@tvfr.com>; Bob Galati

<GalatiB@SherwoodOregon.gov>; Brad Crawford <CrawfordB@SherwoodOregon.gov>; Richard

Sattler <SattlerR@SherwoodOregon.gov>; Jason Waters <WatersJ@SherwoodOregon.gov>; Craig

Christensen <ChristensenC@SherwoodOregon.gov>; Craig Sheldon

<SheldonC@SherwoodOregon.gov>; Jo Guediri <GuediriJ@sherwoodoregon.gov>; Andrew Stirling

<StirlingA@SherwoodOregon.gov>; Colleen Resch <ReschC@SherwoodOregon.gov>; Scott McKie

<McKieS@SherwoodOregon.gov>; Jeff Groth <GrothJ@SherwoodOregon.gov>; Jon Carlson

<CarlsonJ@SherwoodOregon.gov>; hoon.choe@USPS.gov

Subject: Annexation Notice - Request for Comment (LU 2020-010 AN Polley)

Hi Agency Partners:

The Sherwood Planning Department is requesting agency comments on the following

annexation proposal:

Proposal: The applicant is seeking approval for the City of Sherwood to annex ±9.53 acres of

land located at 21720 SW Oregon Street in unincorporated Washington County, Oregon. This

property is currently zoned FD-20 and is covered by the Washington County – Sherwood

Urban Planning Area Agreement. The property is also within the Tonquin Employment Area

and was added to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by the Metro Council in 2004. The

annexation is proposed utilizing the SB 1573 method which requires petition from 100% of

landowners. The applicant is also requesting annexation of the property into Clean Water

Services boundary for the provision of sanitary sewer, stormwater, and surface water

management pursuant to ORS 199.510(C). No development is proposed at this time. Please

see the application material for a full description of the proposal.

Location: 21720 SW Oregon Street / Tax Lot ID 2S128C000500. Link to property on WACO

Intermap.

Comment Deadline: Monday, August 10, 2020 for consideration in the staff report.

Hearing Date: Virtual Hearing before the Sherwood City Council on Tuesday September 1,

20202 at 7pm. A second hearing it tentatively scheduled for September 15, 2020 at 7pm (if

required). Agencies impacted by the proposal are welcome to attend online, however, all

testimony must be submitted in writing prior to the hearing.

All hearings can be viewed at

https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofSherwood

Applicable code criteria: ORS 222 (includes SB 1573) for City annexation; ORS 199.510(C) for

CWS annexation; Metro Code 3.09; City of Sherwood Comprehensive Plan Chapters 3 and 8

Application materials: https://www.sherwoodoregon.gov/planning/project/polley-

annexation

Eric Rutledge

City of Sherwood

Associate Planner

rutledgee@sherwoodoregon.gov

Desk 503.625.4242

Cell 971.979.2315

Covid-19 Update: The City's Planning Department is fully operational, however, with limited face

to face contact. We are processing permits via email/phone where possible and by appointment

when "in person" interaction is required. Please stay safe and healthy.

City of Sherwood

Comm. Dev. Div.--Planning Dept.

22560 SW Pine St

Sherwood OR 97140

CadastralInformationSystemsUnit

POBox14380

Salem,OR97309-5075

fax503-945-8737

boundary.changes@oregon.gov

Preliminary Review

DOR 34-P798-2020

Boundary Change Preliminary Review

July20,2020

Documentsreceived:7/1/2020,7/17/2020

From:EricRutledge

ThisletteristoinformyouthattheDescriptionandMapforyourplannedAnnextoCityof

Sherwood(2020-010AN(SWTonquinRd)(Polley))inWashingtonCountyhavebeenreviewed

peryourrequest.TheyMEETtherequirementsofORS308.225forusewithanOrder,

Ordinance,orResolutionwhichmustbesubmittedtotheWashingtonCountyAssessorandthe

DepartmentofRevenueinfinalapprovedformbeforeMarch31oftheyearinwhichthechange

willbecomeeffective.

DORreceived2Revisedred-lineassessor'smapson7-17-2020.Theseshouldbeusedinthe

Finalpacketwiththeordinancealongwiththesurveyor'smapsanddesciptions.

TheseareforannexationstothecityandCleanWaterServices.

If you have any questions please contact Elise Bruch, Elise.A.Bruch@oregon.gov

21720 SW Oregon Street

Annexation Application

Date:

June 2020,

Revised July 2020

Submitted to:

City of Sherwood

Planning Department

22560 SW Pine Street

Sherwood, OR 97140

Applicants:

Bruce & Karen Polley

PO Box 1489

Sherwood, OR 97140

AKS Job Number:

7971

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 2

II. Site Description/Setting ............................................................................................................ 2

Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 2

Public Utilities .................................................................................................................................. 2

Transportation ................................................................................................................................. 3

III. Applicable Review Criteria ........................................................................................................ 3

OREGON REVISED STATUTES ............................................................................................................ 3

Senate Bill 1573:............................................................................................................................ 3

METRO CODE .................................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 3.09 – Local Government Boundary Changes ................................................................. 5

CITY OF SHERWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ................................................................................... 9

Chapter 3 Growth Management ................................................................................................ 9

Chapter 8 Urban Growth Boundary Additions ........................................................................ 11

IV. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 11

Exhibits

Exhibit A: City of Sherwood Petition for Annexation and Land Use Application

Exhibit B: Washington County Assessor’s Map

Exhibit C: Legal Description and Map

Exhibit D: Boundary Change Data Sheet

Exhibit E: Annexation Questionnaire

Exhibit F: Worksheet for Annexation to the City of Sherwood

Exhibit G: Certification of Property Ownership

Exhibit H: Certification of Legal Description and Map

Exhibit I: Ownership Information

Exhibit J: Additional Referenced Documents

Exhibit K: Washington County-Sherwood Urban Planning Agreement

Exhibit L: Public Notice Information

Annexation Application for

21720 SW Oregon Street

Submitted to:

City of Sherwood

Planning Department

22560 SW Pine Street

Sherwood, OR 97140

Applicants/

Property Owners:

Bruce & Karen Polley

PO Box 1489

Sherwood, OR 97140

Applicant’s Consultant:

AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC

12965 SW Herman Road, Suite 100

Tualatin, OR 97062

Contact:

Mimi Doukas, AICP, RLA

Email:

mimid@aks-eng.com

Phone:

(503) 563‐6151

Site Location:

21720 SW Oregon Street, Sherwood, OR 97140

Southeast of SW Oregon Street, southwest and

northeast of SW Tonquin Road, Sherwood, OR

Assessor’s Map:

Washington County Assessor’s Map 2S 1 28C Lot 500

Site Size:

±9.53 acres

County Plan Designation:

City Zoning Upon

Annexation:

Future Development, 20 acre (FD-20)

Employment Industrial (EI)

I. Executive Summary

The Applicant is seeking approval for the City of Sherwood to annex ±9.53 acres of land located at 21720

SW Oregon Street in unincorporated Washington County, Oregon. This property is located within the

Tonquin Employment Area that was added to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by the Metro Council in

2004. In conjunction with Metro adding this area to the UGB, the City of Sherwood undertook extensive

planning of the Tonquin Employment Area, including transportation and infrastructure and adopted a

Preferred Concept Plan consistent with growth in the Urban Reserve. Annexation of this parcel to the City

of Sherwood is the next step in progression and helps to facilitate the City’s vision of this area.

Senate Bill 1573 (2016) outlines the process for cities to annex territory without an election by voters. The

steps for this process are outlined and addressed below and the proposed annexation meets the

requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 1573.

This written narrative, together with the preliminary plans and other documentation included in the

application materials, establishes that the application complies with all applicable approval criteria. This

documentation provides the basis for the City to recommend approval of the application.

Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 199.510(c), this application includes a simultaneous annexation

of the property into the boundaries of Clean Water Services (CWS) for the provision of sanitary sewer,

stormwater, and surface water management.

II. Site Description/Setting

This property is located southeast of SW Oregon Street and is largely vacant with the exception of the

applicant’s industrial use and business. The subject property is within Washington County jurisdiction and

has a Future Development, 20-acre (FD-20) plan designation. The site is identified in Area 48 – Tonquin

Employment Area (TEA), and further designated as Employment Industrial (EI) on the Sherwood

Comprehensive Plan.

Existing Conditions

The site currently has several structures located on it. These buildings serve the applicant’s industrial

business on the property. The largest shop building at the center of the property serves an industrial use,

while the former single-family residence on the site serves as associated offices for that use. There are

several other accessory structures, some of which are in disuse or are also related to the industrial use on

the property.

Public Utilities

The property can be served by existing public utilities located adjacent or in close proximity to the site.

There is an existing 12-inch water line in SW Oregon Street adjacent to this sites frontage that can provide

service to this site. An existing 15-inch public sanitary sewer line is located approximately 380 feet

southwest of the site. There is an existing 12-inch storm sewer main located in SW Oregon Street that is

available for connection.

Service

Provider

Size

Location

Distance from Site

Water

City of Sherwood

24 inches

SW Oregon Street

Adjacent

Water

City of Sherwood

12 inches

SW Oregon Street

Adjacent

Sanitary Sewer

City of Sherwood

15 inches

SW Oregon Street

Roundabout

±380 feet

southwest of site

Storm Sewer

Clean Water

Services

12 inches

SW Oregon Street

Adjacent

Transportation

The site is located south of SW Oregon Street and is bisected by SW Tonquin Road. The site has frontage

on SW Oregon Street which is under the jurisdiction of Washington County and is classified as an arterial

street with three lanes and a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. SW Tonquin Road is also classified

as an arterial street. SW Tualatin-Sherwood Road is located less than a half mile from the site. The

proximity of these two existing arterial streets to the site provides suitable access for this site and other

properties within the Tonquin Employment Area. As part of the concept planning when the Tonquin

Employment Area was added to the UGB, the City completed a transportation analysis.

III. Applicable Review Criteria

OREGON REVISED STATUTES

Senate Bill 1573:

In response to Senate Bill 1573, which went into effect March 15, 2016, and, “applies to a city

whose laws require a petition proposing annexation of territory to be submitted to the electors

of the city,” the following criteria found in Sections 2 and 3 of Senate Bill 1573 have been

addressed.

Section 2.

(1) This section applies to a city whose laws require a petition proposing

annexation of territory to be submitted to the electors of the city.

Response: Prior to adoption of SB 1573, all territory annexations to the City of Sherwood required

approval by electors of the City. The property owners are petitioning the City of Sherwood

for annexation via the SB 1573 Method rather than the Double, Triple, or Super Majority

Methods, which require a vote by the citizens of the City of Sherwood.

(2) Notwithstanding a contrary provision of the city charter or a city ordinance,

upon receipt of a petition proposing annexation of territory submitted by all

owners of land in the territory, the legislative body of the city shall annex the

territory without submitting the proposal to the electors of the city if:

(a) The territory is included within an urban growth boundary adopted

by the city or Metro, as defined in ORS 197.015

Response: This annexation involves one property located within the Portland Metropolitan UGB and

the Sherwood UGB. The property is within the Tonquin Employment Area, addressed

within the Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan. The area was brought into the

Sherwood UGB in 2004 via Metro Ordinance 04-1040B to provide needed industrial land.

One hundred percent of the landowners have signed an annexation petition, which is

included in the application materials as Exhibit A. Additionally, there are no contrary

provisions of the City of Sherwood City Charter or existing City ordinances. These criteria

are satisfied.

(b) The territory is, or upon annexation of the territory into the city will

be, subject to the acknowledged comprehensive plan of the city.

Response: The Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan, which includes a Comprehensive Plan

Zoning Map, was adopted by the Sherwood City Council on October 5, 2010. This property

is in the Tonquin Employment Area, and upon approval of this annexation application this

property will be zoned Employment Industrial (EI), as shown on Figure VI-I, Proposed

Zoning of the Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan Zoning Map, included in the

Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan.

limits or is separated from the city limits only by a public right of way

or a body of water.

Response: As shown on the legal description and map, the property included in this application is

contiguous to the City limits along SW Oregon Street. This criterion is met.

(d) The proposal conforms to all other requirements of the city’s

ordinances.

Response: Required information, forms, and documents found in the “Checklist for Annexation

Request to the City of Sherwood” are included in this annexation application. This

provision is satisfied.

(3) The territory to be annexed under this section includes any additional territory

described in ORS 222.111 (1) that must be annexed in order to locate

infrastructure and right of way access for services necessary for development

of the territory described in subsection (2) of this section at a density equal to

the average residential density within the annexing city.

Response: The territory to be annexed includes all territories that must be annexed in order to locate

infrastructure and right-of-way access for services necessary for development of the

territory at a density equal to the average residential density within the annexing City, per

the Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan. Access is available from SW Oregon Street.

Sewer is available via an existing sanitary sewer line located southwest of the property

and water is available in SW Oregon Street. Annexation and development of this property

will permit further infrastructure development by the City of Sherwood at the intersection

of SW Oregon Street and SW Tonquin Road. This criterion is satisfied.

(4) When the legislative body of the city determines that the criteria described in

subsection (2) of this section apply to territory proposed for annexation, the

legislative body may declare that the territory described in subsections (2) and

(3) of this section is annexed to the city by an ordinance that contains a

description of the territory annexed.

Response: The criteria of subsection (2) of this section are met through information provided in

individual responses to each of the criterion. Therefore, a legal description and map for

the property planned for annexation prepared by a Professional Land Surveyor is included

in the application materials (Exhibit C).

Section 3

This 2016 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace,

health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2016 Act takes effect on

its passage.

Response: SB 1573 was signed by the Governor and became effective on March 15, 2016.

ORS 199.510 Financial effects of transfer or withdrawal; exceptions.

199.510 (2)

territory thereafter annexed to the city shall be included in the boundaries of

the district and shall be subject to all liabilities of the district in the same

manner and to the same extent as other territory included in the district.

Response: The property, after annexation, will receive services from the City of Sherwood but will

also continue to receive services from larger districts such as Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue

(TVFR), Sherwood School District, and Washington County Cooperative Library Services.

CWS does not currently provide water resources management services to the property;

however, a portion of the property is already within the CWS service district. Upon

annexation to the City, the remainder of the property will be added to the boundaries of

the CWS service district. This criterion is met.

METRO CODE

Chapter 3.09 – Local Government Boundary Changes

3.09.040 Requirements for Petitions

A. A petition for a boundary change must contain the following information:

1. The jurisdiction of the reviewing entity to act on the petition;

2. A map and a legal description of the affected territory in the form prescribed

by the reviewing entity;

3. For minor boundary changes, the names and mailing addresses of all persons

owning property and all electors within the affected territory as shown in the

records of the tax assessor and county clerk; and

4. For boundary changes under ORS 198.855(3), 198.857, 222.125 or 222.170,

statements of consent to the annexation signed by the requisite number of

owners or electors.

B. A city, county and Metro may charge a fee to recover its reasonable costs to carry out

its duties and responsibilities under this chapter.

Response: The City is the reviewing entity that will act on this petition. Necessary application forms

and exhibits, as well as associated review fees, have been submitted with this application.

A map and legal description of the affected territory are included in Exhibit C. The names

and mailing addresses of persons owning property in the affected territory, per County

Tax Assessor and County Clerk records, are included in Exhibit I. Finally, a statement of

consent from the requisite owners and electors is included in Exhibit A. The criteria are

met.

3.09.045 Expedited Decisions

A. The governing body of a city or Metro may use the process set forth in this section for

minor boundary changes for which the petition is accompanied by the written

consents of one hundred percent of property owners and at least fifty percent of the

electors, if any, within the affected territory. No public hearing is required.

B. The expedited process must provide for a minimum of 20 days' notice prior to the date

set for decision to all necessary parties and other persons entitled to notice by the laws

of the city or Metro. The notice shall state that the petition is subject to the expedited

process unless a necessary party gives written notice of its objection to the boundary

change.

C. At least seven days prior to the date of decision the city or Metro shall make available

to the public a report that includes the following information:

1. The extent to which urban services are available to serve the affected territory,

including any extraterritorial extensions of service;

2. Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the

affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party; and

3. The proposed effective date of the boundary change.

Response: This annexation is not an expedited decision and therefore these criteria do not apply.

D. To approve a boundary change through an expedited process, the city shall:

1. Find that the change is consistent with expressly applicable provisions in:

a. Any applicable urban service agreement adopted pursuant to ORS

195.065;

Response: This criterion relates to state statutes requiring local governments and special districts to

provide urban services to an area within an urban growth boundary with a population

greater than 2,500. Properties within the urban growth boundary of the City of Sherwood

are subject to the Washington County/Sherwood Urban Planning Area Agreement. The

City of Sherwood, per this agreement, has prepared the appropriate comprehensive plan

and public facilities plan updates needed for all areas within the City’s UGB. The Tonquin

Employment Area Concept Plan was developed to address and plan for annexation within

this area with the Urban Planning Area Agreement in mind.

This petition for annexation has considered each of these services and any involved

special districts or local governments. This annexation into the boundaries of Sherwood

and the CWS service district complies with this criterion.

b. Any applicable annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205;

Response: ORS 195.205 allows for an annexation vote by the electorate, however this method of

annexation has been superseded by Senate Bill 1573. The Sherwood City Council will vote

on whether to annex this property to the City. Additionally, the citizens of Sherwood have

voted to support annexation within this area of the UGB through Measure No. 34-202,

passed in 2012. This requirement is met.

c. Any applicable cooperative planning agreement adopted pursuant to

ORS 195.020(2) between the affected entity and a necessary party;

Response: The City of Sherwood has entered into cooperative planning agreements with all

applicable and necessary parties which provide services to the area. The City is part of the

CWS service district and the TVFR district. Annexation into the City of Sherwood will also

annex the property into the CWS service district. The annexation will not affect the

provision of fire services, which will continue to be provided by the TVFR upon

annexation.

The property is also currently within the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol

District. Upon annexation, the property will be removed from the district and policing

services provided by the Sherwood Police Department.

This application is consistent with the provisions of these planning agreements.

d. Any applicable public facility plan adopted pursuant to a statewide

planning goal on public facilities and services;

Response: The Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan was adopted by the City of Sherwood in

October 2010 through a public process and is consistent with Statewide Planning Goals,

the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and applicable master plans. This annexation complies

with all applicable master plans of the City of Sherwood, the City’s Comprehensive Plan,

the Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan, and the Sherwood Municipal Code.

e. Any applicable comprehensive plan;

Response: Compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan is addressed later within this narrative.

This criterion is met.

f. Any applicable concept plan; and

Response: Compliance with the Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan is reviewed later within this

narrative. This criterion is satisfied.

2. Consider whether the boundary change would:

a. Promote the timely, orderly and economic provision of public

facilities and services;

Response: Provision of public facilities and services to the annexed territory can occur in a timely

and orderly manner. Utilities and street access are available adjacent to the site or within

a short distance from the site. Adjacent properties have been annexed to the City of

Sherwood or are likely to be within the near future. Annexation of this site was anticipated

and is a step towards development and growth of the area. This boundary change meets

these requirements.

b. Affect the quality and quantity of urban services; and

Response: The annexation will not affect the quality or quantity of urban services provided by the

City of Sherwood or to surrounding properties. Increased urban infrastructure and service

provisions will be reviewed as part of future development review. Systems Development

Charges and property taxes will be assessed to offset the impact of development of this

property. It is not expected that development of this site will have any affect on or

decrease in quality or quantity of urban services provided by the City of Sherwood.

c. Eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services.

Response: There are currently no City services being used by the territory. Annexing the territory to

the City and removing it from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District

will avoid duplication of policing services. After annexation, the territory will be served by

the Sherwood Police Department.

E. A city may not annex territory that lies outside the UGB, except it may annex a lot or

parcel that lies partially within and partially outside the UGB.

Response: The territory of proposed annexation is entirely within the Sherwood UGB. This criterion

is satisfied.

3.09.050 Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions Other Than Expedited Decisions

A. The following requirements for hearings on petitions operate in addition to

requirements for boundary changes in ORS Chapters 198, 221 and 222 and the

reviewing entity’s charter, ordinances or resolutions.

Response: This narrative and accompanying exhibits respond to applicable state and local

requirements pertaining to boundary changes. Additionally, Metro Code Section 3.09 and

the Sherwood Development Code implement the applicable annexation provisions from

ORS Chapters 198, 221, and 222. This narrative demonstrates that the applicable

boundary change requirements have been satisfied. The criterion is met.

B. Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a hearing the reviewing entity shall make

available to the public a report that addresses the criteria identified in subsection (D)

and includes the following information:

1. The extent to which urban services are available to serve the affected territory,

including any extra territorial extensions of service;

Response: Urban services are or will be made available to serve the affected territory to a level

consistent with City and CWS standards per the City’s Tonquin Employment Area Concept

Plan, Water System Master Plan, Stormwater Master Plan, and Sanitary System Master

Plan. Utilities are available to serve the site within the SW Oregon Street right-of-way or

within close proximity to the site.

Water and storm sewer utilities are available within the adjacent SW Oregon Street right-

of-way. Sanitary sewer is available within the right-of-way of the SW Oregon Street/SW

Murdock Road roundabout ±380 feet southwest of the site.

Parks and recreation and transportation planning services will be provided by the City of

Sherwood upon annexation. The annexation application does not trigger park

requirements. A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required with site

development. A transportation analysis for the Tonquin Employment Area was completed

as part of the Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan.

Fire and Police services are currently available to the property through the TVFR and the

Washington County Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District. While the area to be annexed will

be removed from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District, the area will

continue to be served by TVFR upon annexation. The Sherwood Police Department will

provide police services upon annexation.

These requirements are satisfied.

2. Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the

affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party; and

Response: Metro Code Section 3.09.020 defines the following terms: “affected territory” means a

territory described in a petition; “necessary party” means any county, city, or district

whose jurisdictional boundary or adopted urban service area includes any part of the

affected territory, or who provides any urban service to any portion of the affected

territory, including Metro, or any other unit of local government, as defined in ORS

190.003, that is a party to any agreement for provision of an urban service to the affected

territory. The annexation will add approximately 9.53 acres of land to Sherwood for the

provision of urban services but will not withdraw the affected territory from the legal

boundary of any party other than the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol

District, as outlined above. The legal description of the area is included in Exhibit C.

3. The proposed effective date of the boundary change.

Response: The Applicant anticipates approval of the Annexation application upon adoption by the

City of Sherwood City Council, by October 2020. The criterion is met.

C. The person or entity proposing the boundary change has the burden to demonstrate

that the proposed boundary change meets the applicable criteria.

Response: This application includes responses demonstrating compliance to applicable boundary

change criteria. The criterion is met.

D. To approve a boundary change, the reviewing entity shall apply the criteria and

consider the factors set forth in subsections (D) and (E) of section 3.09.045.

Response: Responses to Metro Code Sections 3.09.045 (D) and (E) are included above.

CITY OF SHERWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Chapter 3 Growth Management

3.1 Growth Management

B. POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

1. POLICY GOAL

To adopt and implement a growth management policy which will

accommodate growth consistent with growth limits, desired population

densities, land carrying capacity, environmental quality and livability.

2. POLICY OBJECTIVES

a. Focus growth into areas contiguous to existing development rather

than "leap frogging" over developable property.

Response: The property included in this application is contiguous with Sherwood city limits.

Therefore, this application does not require “leap frogging” over developable property.

This provision is satisfied.

b. Encourage development within the present city limits, especially on

large passed-over parcels that are available.

Response: This application involves a property that is located within the Tonquin Employment Area

and annexation of this property will allow industrial land use to occur within city limits in

a location that would be compatible with other nearby industrially-zoned properties. This

criterion is met.

c. Encourage annexation inside the UGB where services are available.

Response: The property included in this annexation application was brought into the UGB in 2004.

Services have been identified in the City’s Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan to be

available or available for extension to this area. This criterion is met.

d. When designating urban growth areas, consider lands with poorer

agricultural soils before prime agricultural lands.

Response: The property included in this annexation application is part of the City’s Tonquin

Employment Area Concept Plan and was brought into the UGB in 2004. By including the

subject area within the UGB, both Metro and the City of Sherwood have identified this

land as more appropriate for future urbanization than for the conservation of the area for

agricultural uses. This provision is satisfied.

e. Achieve the maximum preservation of natural features.

Response: Upon annexation of this property into city limits, the City of Sherwood’s regulations for

natural features will apply, whereas currently they do not. This includes the City’s Zoning

and Development Code and the rules and regulations of CWS, which apply to sensitive

areas. This criterion is satisfied.

f. Provide proper access and traffic circulation to all new development.

Response: Transportation and circulation improvements needed to serve the future development of

the annexed area have been identified in the City’s Tonquin Employment Area Concept

Plan and Transportation System Plan and will further be reviewed at the time of a future

development application. This criterion is met.

g. Establish policies for the orderly extension of community services

and public facilities to areas where new growth is to be encouraged,

consistent with the ability of the community to provide necessary

services. New public facilities should be available in conjunction

with urbanization in order to meet future needs. The City,

Washington County, and special service districts should cooperate in

the development of a capital improvements program in areas of

mutual concern. Lands within the urban growth boundary shall be

available for urban development concurrent with the provision of the

key urban facilities and services.

Response: Extending community services and public facilities to serve the Tonquin area was

considered concurrently with the Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan and the

services were found to be available or able to be appropriately extended with the future

development in the area. These criteria are met.

h. Provide for phased and orderly transition from rural to suburban or

urban uses.

Response: This property is located within the Tonquin Employment Area and is designated as

Employment Industrial (EI) on the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Tonquin Employment

Area was extensively planned by the City to help guide future development of the area in

an orderly fashion. This criterion is met.

F. GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY

The following policies and strategies are established for the management of urban

growth in the Planning Area.

1. GROWTH AREAS

Policy 5

Changes in the City limits may be proposed by the City, County,

special districts or individuals in conformance with City policies and

procedures for the review of annexation requests and County

procedures for amendment of its comprehensive plan.

Response: This application request and supporting materials are in conformance with City policies

and procedures for annexations. This provision is met.

Policy 7

All new development must have access to adequate urban public

sewer and water service.

Response: As previously discussed, this site is in close proximity to existing services and can connect

to existing public sewer and water services. This criterion is met.

Chapter 8 Urban Growth Boundary Additions

D. 4. Area 48- Tonquin Employment Area

Implementation

The City of Sherwood shall amend the Zoning and Community Development

Code to include an Employment Industrial zone that implements the goals

and policies in this section.

Response: The City of Sherwood has amended the Zoning and Community Development Code to

include an Employment Industrial (EI) zone through Ordinance 2010-014. This provision

is satisfied.

2. The Employment Industrial zone may be applied only to those properties

within city limits, or upon their annexation to the city.

Response: Upon annexation of this property into the City of Sherwood, this property will be zoned

Employment Industrial (EI). This criterion is met.

IV. Conclusion

The submittal requirements have been met and the required findings made for the applicable approval

criteria. These findings serve as the basis for the City to approve the application and are supported by

substantial evidence in the application materials.

Exhibit A: City of Sherwood Petition for Annexation and Land Use Application

Exhibit A:

City of Sherwood Petition for Annexation

and Land Use Application

CHECKLIST FOR ANNEXATION REQUEST

TO THE CITY OF SHERWOOD

Submit the following to the City of Sherwood Planning Department, 22560 SW Pine

Street, Sherwood, OR 97140: (503) 625-5522.

Fee- $7,500. Applicants are required to pay the $7,500 filing fee which will be

applied to all costs related to processing the annexation application. Money not

used for costs will be returned to the applicant.

An original and one copy of the enclosed packet titled Annexations to City of

Sherwood.

Mailing labels: Submit two (2) sets of mailing labels for property owners within

1000 feet of the outside edge of the territory to be annexed. Mailing labels can be

obtained from a private title insurance company.

Additionally, you must submit a list of all property owners and registered voters in

the area to be annexed regardless of whether they signed the annexation petition

or not.

Annexations to the City of Sherwood

There are generally four methods of owner initiated annexation. These methods are

described below, and the information needed to initiate either method is covered in this

application. It should be noted that a vote of the citizens of the City of Sherwood are

required in three of the four methods.

Double Majority- An annexation where the majority of electors and a majority of the

landowners in the proposed annexation area have agreed to annex into the City. In this

instance, a majority of the landowners, and at least 51% of the registered voters within

the area to be annexed must support the annexation. This method requires a vote of the

citizens of the City of Sherwood.

Triple Majority- An annexation method that requires consent from a majority of the land

owners who own a majority of real property and a majority of the assessed value of land

within the area that is to be annexed. This method does not require that 51% of the

registered voters in the area to be annexed support the application. This method requires

a vote of the citizens of the City of Sherwood.

✔

Super Majority- An annexation method where more than 50% of the registered voters

within the affected territory, and 100% of the property owners within the affected territory

support annexation. This method requires a vote of the citizens of the City of Sherwood.

SB1573 Method- When 100% of the property owners file a petition to be annexed, and

if all criteria outlined in SB1573 are satisfied, then the requirement from the City Charter

for a mandated City wide vote is exempted (this is required in all three other methods).

The City Council becomes the acting authority and no vote of the public is required or

permitted.

I. Application Process for Property Owners and Registered Voters

PLEASE READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE FILING A PETITION WITH THE CITY

Step 1. Petition

Please complete the attached Petition form.

Who May Sign: An elector registered to vote in the territory to be annexed; a

property owner who is the legal owner of record or, where there is a recorded

land contract, the purchaser thereunder. If there is multiple ownership each

signer is counted in proportion to the size of their ownership. If a corporation

owns land, the corporation is considered the individual owner and the form

must be signed by an officer of the corporation who has the right to sign on

behalf of the corporation.

Have the County Assessor’s Office:

1. Certify the property owner signatures using the attached Certification of

Property Ownership form (all methods).

2. Certify the assessed value for the properties on the attached Certification

of Assessed Value form (for the Triple Majority Method only).

3. Buy two ¼ Section Maps showing the property to be annexed (all

methods).

4. Certify the map and legal description using the attached Certification of

Assessed Value form (all methods).

5. Proceed to the County Elections Department and have them certify the

signatures of the registered voters by completing the attached

Certification of Registered Voters form (for the Double Majority and Super

Majority Method only). Do this even if the property is vacant. In that case

they certify that there are no registered voters in the affected territory.

Step 2. Legal Description

The legal description noted above must be a metes and bounds legal

description of the territory to be annexed. This description should be inserted

in or attached to the Petition. In addition, one separate copy of the metes and

bounds description should be submitted to the City along with the application.

(A lot, block and subdivision description may be substituted for the metes and

bounds description if the area is platted and no metes and bounds description

is available, and if this is acceptable to the County Assessor's Office.) If the

legal description contains any deed or book and page references, legible

copies of these must be submitted with the legal description.

Step 3. Map

As noted above you must submit two copies of the 1/4 Section map. This

should be the latest County Assessor's quarter section map (or maps) which

indicates the territory to be annexed. Outline the area to be annexed on the

maps with a red marker or pencil.

Step 4. Notice List & Labels

You must submit two (2) sets of mailing labels for property owners within 1000

feet of the outside edge of the territory to be annexed. Mailing labels can be

obtained from a private title insurance company. Additionally, you must submit

a list of all property owners and registered voters in the area to be annexed

regardless of whether they signed the annexation petition or not.

Step 5. Information Sheet

Complete the attached Boundary Change Data Sheet.

Step 6. Work Sheet

A Worksheet is attached. Fill out the worksheet to help verify that all

requirements are met.

Step 7. Annexation Questionnaire

Complete the Annexation Questionnaire.

Step 8. Draft a Narrative

The application must include a detailed narrative of how the project complies

with criteria for approval. There are three levels of criteria/requirements, State,

Regional and City. It is the applicant’s responsibility to justify the petition.

For the State, Oregon Revised Statutes guide the process for annexations,

ORS 222. See:

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors222.html.

For the fourth method outlined above, Senate Bill 1573 was added to, and

made a part of, ORS 222.111 to 222.180 and provides specific criteria for

deciding city boundary changes. See:

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/222.111.

For the regional level Metro is governing agency. Metro has criteria for

reviewing annexations (Metro Code 3.09). See:

http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/309_eff_071112__final.pdf.

In addition, the City of Sherwood Comprehensive Plan goals and policies,

specifically those in Chapter 3 and Chapter 8 are applicable and should be

addressed in the narrative. See:

https://www.sherwoodoregon.gov/planning/page/comprehensive-plan-ii.

Step 9. Submit Application to City

Submit all materials to City Planning Department.

II. City Review

BELOW IS A SUMMARY OF THE STEPS WHICH WILL BE TAKEN REGARDING

ANNEXATIONS INITIATED BY ANY OF THESE FOUR METHODS.

Step 1. Compliance Review

Submitted materials will be checked for compliance with requirements of state

statutes and the Metro Code Section 3.09 requirements.

Step 2. Public Hearing Date Set

The proposal will be set for a hearing by the city council at the next hearing

date for which all the requirements of the Metro Code and state statutes can

be met. The setting of the hearing date must occur within 45 days of the day

the proposal is judged to be complete pursuant to Metro rules.

Step 3. Public Hearing Notice

Notice of the public hearing will be sent to service providers in the area, to the

applicant, to adjacent property owners and to appropriate neighborhood or

community organizations. Notice of the hearing will be posted in and around

the territory to be annexed. The hearing will also be advertised twice in a

newspaper of general circulation in the area

Step 4. Staff Study and Report

A staff report will be prepared. This report will cover all applicable criteria

specified in State ORS 222, the Metro Code, and all applicable criteria and

goals form the City of Sherwood Comprehensive Plan. This report will be made

available to the public 15 days prior to the hearing.

Step 5. Public Hearing

The City Council holds a public hearing. At the hearing the Council will consider

applicable criteria. For the SB1573 Method, this is the final decision making

body that acts on the petition.

For the other three methods, at the conclusion of the public hearing, if Council

supports the annexation, they will forward the issue to the voters at the next

available election (usually no less than 60 days).

All annexations, except those that use the SB1573 Method, in Sherwood

require a majority approval of the voters. After the election, the Council will

accept the certified election results and, if approved, by the voters, proclaim the

annexation.

III. Additional Information

1. In order to officially change the boundary, Staff must send the order must be sent

to Secretary of State, County Recorder and County Assessor, State Revenue

Department, and City Recorder. Other interested parties (such as the utilities) are

notified as well. Staff will mail the notice of decision to several local, regional, and

State agencies and departments as required by law to complete the annexation.

2. Annexation to the City of Sherwood boundary allows for City Services. Additional

service district boundary annexations may be necessary (e.g. Clean Water

Services, Metro Regional Boundary, etc.).

3. All annexations fees to the City are deposit based, meaning the City will charge all

required time and materials against the funds, and request additional form the

applicant should additional funds be required.

4. Metro requires a fee to process city-approved annexations for individual applicants.

That fee will be paid by the City as a pass through, and varies depending on the

size and type of the annexation. The Metro fee will be taken from the applicants

application deposit.

21720 SW Oregon St., Sherwood

100

101

7/17/20

102

Exhibit

Washington County Assessor's Map

Exhibit B: Washington County Assessor’s Map

103

104

Exhibit

Legal Description and Map

Exhibit C: Legal Description and Map

105

AKS Job #7971

EXHIBIT A

Legal Description

City of Sherwood Annexation

A tract of land located in the Southwest One-Quarter of Section 28, Township 2 South, Range 1

West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, and being more particularly described

as follows:

Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 28; thence along the south line of said

Southwest One-Quarter of Section 28, South 88º50’36” East 484.43 feet to the southwest corner

of Document Number 2008-025922 and the True Point of Beginning; thence along the westerly

line of said Deed and the northerly extension thereof, North 24º57’57” West 110.53 feet to the

centerline of SW Oregon Street and the City of Sherwood city limits line; thence along said

centerline and said city limits line on a non-tangent curve to the left (with radial bearing North

34º03’55” West) with a Radius 236.00 feet, Delta of 09º08’42”, Length of 37.67 feet, and a

Chord of North 51º21’44” East 37.63 feet; thence continuing along said centerline and said city

limits line, North 46º47’23” East 515.84 feet; thence along a curve to the left with a Radius of

1312.33 feet, Delta of 05º31’00”, Length of 126.36 feet, and a Chord of North 44º01’53” East

126.31 feet; thence North 41º16’23” East 562.79 feet; thence North 41º05’27” East 8.35 feet;

thence leaving said centerline and said city limits line, South 49º05’29” East 37.00 feet to the

northeast corner of said Deed on the southeasterly right-of-way line of SW Oregon Street (37.00

feet from centerline); thence along the east line of said Deed, South 01º32’54” West 989.74 feet

to the south line of the Southwest One-Quarter of Section 28; thence along said south line, North

88º50’36” West 824.61 feet to the True Point of Beginning.

The above described tract contains 10.9 acres, more or less.

06/09/2020

106

SW OREGON

STREET

SW TONQUIN

ROAD

CITY ANNEXATION AREA

107

AKS Job #7971

EXHIBIT A

Legal Description

Clean Water Services Annexation

A tract of land located in the Southwest One-Quarter of Section 28, Township 2 South, Range 1

West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, and being more particularly described

as follows:

Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 28; thence along the south line of said

Southwest One-Quarter of Section 28, South 88º50’36” East 651.35 feet to the southwesterly

right-of-way line of SW Tonquin Road (variable width right-of-way) and the Clean Water

Services district boundary line and the True Point of Beginning; thence along said boundary line

and said southwesterly right-of-way line on a non-tangent curve to the left (radial bearing South

50º32’27” West) with a Radius of 1412.56 feet, Delta of 04º10’05”, Length of 102.76 feet, and a

Chord of North 41º32’35” West 102.74 feet; thence continuing along said southwesterly right-of-

way line and said boundary line and the northwesterly extension thereof, North 43º37’37” West

116.00 feet to the centerline of SW Oregon Street; thence along said centerline and continuing

along said boundary line, North 46º47’23” East 466.48 feet; thence continuing along said

centerline and said boundary line, along a curve to the left with a Radius of 1312.33 feet, Delta

of 05º31’00”, Length of 126.36 feet, and a Chord of North 44º01’53” East 126.31 feet; thence

North 41º16’23” East 562.79 feet; thence North 41º05’27” East 8.35 feet; thence leaving said

centerline and continuing along said boundary line, South 49º05’29” East 37.00 feet to the

northeast corner of Document Number 2008-025922; thence along the east line of said Deed,

South 01º32’54” West 989.74 feet to the south line of the Southwest One-Quarter of Section 28;

thence leaving said boundary line and along said south line, North 88º50’36” West 657.70 feet to

the True Point of Beginning.

The above described tract contains 10.5 acres, more or less.

06/09/2020

108

SW OREGON

STREET

SW TONQUIN

ROAD

CWS ANNEXATION AREA

109

Exhibit

Boundary Change Data Sheet

Exhibit D: Boundary Change Data Sheet

110

BOUNDARY CHANGE DATA SHEET

I. EXISTING CONDITIONS IN AREA TO BE ANNEXED OR WITHDRAWN_________________

A. General location: ________________________________________________________

B. Land Area: Acres ___________________ or Square Miles ___________________

C. General description of territory. (Include topographic features such as slopes,

vegetation, drainage basins, floodplain areas, which are pertinent to this proposal.)

______________________________________________________________________

D. Describe Land uses on surrounding parcels. Use tax lots as reference points.

North: ________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

East: __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

South: ________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

West: _________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

E. Existing Land Use:

Number of single-family units ______ Number of multi-family units ______

Number of commercial structures ______ Number of industrial structures ______

Public facilities or other uses _______________________________________________

What is the current use the land proposed to be annexed: ________________________

______________________________________________________________________

F. Total current year Assessed Valuation: $_____________________________________

G. Total existing population: _________________________________________________

111

South of SW Oregon St., East and west of SW Tonquin Rd.

±9.53 acres

Partially developed and vegetated property. Western portions of the property feature wetland

and riparian habitats. Some areas of the property have >10% slopes and upland habitats.

TL 501 - General Industrial

TL 400 - Vacant General Industrial

TL 600 - Vacant Employment Industrial

TL 300, 401, 403 - Residential, FD-20

TL 100 - Vacant, Unincorporated FD-20

TL 2500 - Vacant Unincorporated SFR (Rock Creek wetland and riparian areas)

TL 400 - Light Industrial

Industrial Service

231,020

II. REASON FOR BOUNDARY CHANGE____________________________________________

A. The Metro Code spells out criteria for consideration (Metro Code 3.09.050). Considering

these criteria, please provide the reasons the proposed boundary change should be

made. Please be very specific. Use additional pages if necessary.

______________________________________________________________________

B. If the property to be served is entirely or substantially undeveloped, what are the plans

for future development? Be specific. Describe type (residential, industrial, commercial,

etc.), density, etc.

______________________________________________________________________

III. LAND USE AND PLANNING____________________________________________________

A. Is the subject territory inside or outside of the Metro Regional Urban Growth Boundary?

______________________________________________________________________

B. What is the applicable County Planning Designation? ___________________________

Or City Planning Designation? _____________________________________________

Does the proposed development comply with applicable regional, county or city

comprehensive plans? Please describe.

______________________________________________________________________

C. What is the zoning on the territory to be served?

______________________________________________________________________

D. Can the proposed development be accomplished under current county zoning?

_____ Yes _____ No

If No, has a zone change been sought from the county either formally or informally?

_____ Yes _____ No

Please describe outcome of zone change request if answer to previous questions was Yes.

__________________________________________________________________

112

Please see attached narrative.

Annexation for future industrial development and city services. Please see attached narrative.

Inside Metro Regional UGB

FD-20

EI-Employment Industrial

The area to be annexed is consistent with the TEA Concept Plan, an adopted part of the City of

Sherwood Comprehensive Plan. For more detail, please see attached narrative.

EI - Employment Industrial

✔

N/A

E. Please indicate all permits and/or approvals from a City, County or Regional

Government which will be needed for the proposed development. If already granted,

please indicate date of approval and identifying number:

APPROVAL

PROJECT

FILE NO.

DATE OF

APPROVAL

FUTURE

REQUIREMENT

Metro UGB Amendment

City of County Plan Amendment

Pre-Application Hearing (City or

County)

Preliminary Subdivision Approval

Final Plat Approval

Land Partition

Conditional Use

Variance

Sub-Surface Sewage Disposal

Building Permit

Please submit copies of proceedings relating to any of the above permits or approvals

which are pertinent to the annexation.

F. If a city and/or county-sanctioned citizens’ group exists in the area of the annexation,

please list its name and address of a contact person.

______________________________________________________________________

IV. SERVICES AND UTILITIES_____________________________________________________

A. Please indicate the following:

1. Location and size of nearest water line that can serve the subject area.

___________________________________________________________________

2. Location and size of nearest sewer line which can serve the subject area.

___________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. Proximity of other facilities (storm drains, fire engine companies, etc.) which can

serve the subject area.

___________________________________________________________________

113

2004

TEACP

10/2010

4/30/2020

Washington County CPO 5 Sherwood-Tualatin S1 - Inactive

24" and 12" water line within SW Oregon Street

15" sanitary line Oregon St./Murdock Rd. Roundabout - ±380 feet southwest of property

12" storm water line within SW Oregon Street

TVFR Station 33 - less than one mile southwest

4. The time at which services can be reasonably provided by the city or district.

___________________________________________________________________

5. The estimated cost of extending such facilities and/or services and what is to be the

method of financing. (Attach any supporting documents.)

___________________________________________________________________

6. Availability of desired service from any other unit of local government. (Please

indicate the government.)

___________________________________________________________________

B. If the territory described in the proposal is presently included within the boundaries of or

being served extraterritorially or contractually by, any of the following types of

governmental units please so indicate by stating the name or names of the

governmental units involved.

City ____________________________ Rural Fire Dist. ________________________

County Service Dist. _______________ Sanitary District ________________________

Hwy. Lighting Dist. ________________ Water District __________________________

Grade School Dist. ________________ Drainage District ________________________

High School Dist. __________________ Diking District __________________________

Library Dist. ______________________ Park & Rec. Dist. ________________________

Special Road Dist._________________ Other District Supplying

Water Service ________________________

C. If any of the above units are presently servicing the territory (for instance, are residents

in the territory hooked up to a public sewer or water system), please so describe.

______________________________________________________________________

114

Services will be available upon annexation to the City.

The cost of extending necessary utilities will be paid upon future site development.

All requested services are available.

N/A

TVF&R

Washington Co.

N/A

SSD 88J

N/A

SSD 88J

N/A

WCCLS

N/A

TVF&R currently serves the area and will continue to do so once annexed.

V. APPLICANT INFORMATION____________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S NAME __________________________________________________________

MAILING ADDRESS __________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

TELEPHONE NUMBER __________________________________________________ (Work)

__________________________________________________ (Res.)

REPRESENTING _____________________________________________________________

DATE _______________________________________________________________________

115

Bruce & Karen Polley

PO Box 1489

Sherwood OR 97140

Please Contact Applicant's Consultant

AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC - Mimi Doukas, AICP, RLA

5/12/20 mimid@aks-eng.com

Phone: 503-563-6151

Fax: 503-563-6152

12965 SW Herman Road, Suite 100

Tualatin, OR 97062

Applicant's Consultant

Exhibit

Annexation Questionnaire

Exhibit E: Annexation Questionnaire

116

ANNEXATION QUESTIONNAIRE

It is the applicant’s responsibility to obtain the information requested on the attached annexation

questionnaire. The information is used by the Center for Population Research and Census

(CPRC) at Portland State University to update the estimate of the population for the City of

Sherwood after annexations.

The information collected is confidential and is used for no other purpose. Please obtain the

information prior to submitting the annexation petition. It is your responsibility to update this

information if changes are made between the original application filing and the effective date of

the application.

Fill out one sheet per property that is being annexed.

Address:__________________________________________________________________

Housing type:

Single-family home

Multi-family residence

Manufactured home

Occupancy:

Owner occupied

Renter occupied

Vacant

Seasonal

Resident Information:

Last Name

First Name

Sex

Age

LAST NAME

FIRST NAME

SEX

AGE

117

21720 SW Oregon Street, Sherwood, OR 97140

N/A

N/A - NO RESIDENTS ON PROPERTY

N/A

✔

- Currently used as office for business onsite.

Exhibit

Worksheet for Annexation to the City of Sherwood

Exhibit F:

Worksheet for Annexation to the City of Sherwood

118

WORKSHEET FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SHERWOOD

Please list all properties/registered voters included in the proposal. (If needed, use separate sheets for additional listings.)

**Property Information** (ALL METHODS)

PROPERTY

DESIGNATION

(Tax Lot Numbers)

NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER

TOTAL

ACRES

ASSESSED VALUE OF

THE PROPERTY

SIGNED

PETITION

YES NO

Totals:

**Registered Voters** (DOUBLE MAJORITY METHOD ONLY)

ADDRESS OF REGISTERED VOTER

NAME OF REGISTERED VOTER

SIGNED

PETITION

YES NO

Totals:

**Summary**

TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE PROPOSAL: _____

NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS WHO SIGNED PETITION:_____

PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS WHO SIGNED PETITION:_____

TOTAL ACREAGE IN THE PROPOSAL:_____

ACREAGE SIGNED FOR:_____

PERCENTAGE OF ACREAGE SIGNED FOR:_____

TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS:_____

TOTAL NUMBER OF MULTI-FAMILY UNITS:_____

TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES:_____

TOTAL NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES:_____

119

2S 1 28C Lot 500

Bruce & Karen Polley

±9.53

$231,020

±9.53

$231,020

N/A - NO REGISTERED VOTERS

100

N/A

9.53

Exhibit

Certification of Property Ownership

Exhibit G: Certification of Property Ownership

120

121

122

Exhibit

Certification of Legal Description and Map

Exhibit H: Certification of Legal Description and Map

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

Exhibit

Ownership Information

Exhibit I: Ownership Information

131

Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Partition

Page 1 of 6 (Ver. 20080422)

First American Title Insurance Company

121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 300

Portland, OR 97204

Phn - (503)222-3651 (800)929-3651

Fax - (877)242-3513

PUBLIC RECORD REPORT

FOR NEW SUBDIVISION OR LAND PARTITION

THIS REPORT IS ISSUED BY THE ABOVE-NAMED COMPANY ("THE COMPANY") FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE

OF:

AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC

12965 SW Herman RD STE 100

Tualatin, OR 97062

Phone: (503)563-6151

Fax: (503)563-6152

Date Prepared

: March 02, 2020

Effective Date

: 8:00 A.M on February 21, 2020

Order No.

: 7019-3402741

Subdivision

The information contained in this report is furnished by First American Title Insurance Company (the

"Company") as an information service based on the records and indices maintained by the Company for

the county identified below. This report is not title insurance, is not a preliminary title report for title

insurance, and is not a commitment for title insurance. No examination has been made of the Company's

records, other than as specifically set forth in this report. Liability for any loss arising from errors and/or

omissions is limited to the lesser of the fee paid or the actual loss to the Customer, and the Company will

have no greater liability by reason of this report. This report is subject to the Definitions, Conditions and

Stipulations contained in it.

REPORT

A. The Land referred to in this report is located in the County of Washington, State of Oregon, and is

described as follows:

As fully set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.

B. As of the Effective Date, the tax account and map references pertinent to the Land are as

follows:

As fully set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.

C. As of the Effective Date and according to the Public Records, we find title to the land apparently

vested in:

As fully set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof

D. As of the Effective Date and according to the Public Records, the Land is subject to the following

liens and encumbrances, which are not necessarily shown in the order of priority:

As fully set forth on Exhibit "C" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.

132

First American Title Insurance Company

Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Land Partition

Order No. 7019-3402741

Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Partition

Page 2 of 6 (Ver. 20080422)

EXHIBIT "A"

(Land Description Map Tax and Account)

THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 2

SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON AND

STATE OF OREGON.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT TRACT CONVEYED TO JOHN CAMPBELL BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK

56, PAGE 232, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, WHICH TRACT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PART OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST OF

THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON AND STATE OF OREGON. BEGINNING

AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28, AND THENCE NORTH ON THE WEST SECTION

LINE 16.41 CHAINS TO THE CENTER OF THE DITCH; THENCE UP SAID DITCH SOUTH 21° 1/2" EAST

7.92 CHAINS AND SOUTH 26° EAST 10.01 CHAINS TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE

WEST ON SAID LINE 7.32 CHAINS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM PART OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-

QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN

THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON AND STATE OF OREGON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST

ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE SOUTH 0° 08' 14" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID

SECTION 28, 241.02 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY POINT OF THAT PARCEL DEEDED BY P.P. BAILEY

AND WIFE TO JOHN CAMPBELL, RECORDED BY DEED DATED MARCH 9, 1901, RECORDED MARCH 26,

1901, IN BOOK 56, PAGE 232, OF WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS, SAID POINT ALSO BEING IN

THE CENTER OF A DITCH DESCRIBED IN SAID BAILEY DEED; THENCE SOUTH 21° 43' 30" EAST

FOLLOWING SAID DITCH CENTERLINE 523.00 FEET (522.72 DEED); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID

DITCH CENTERLINE SOUTH 26° 13' 30" EAST 530.95 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE

OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 492; THENCE NORTH 45° 19' EAST ALONG SAID COUNTY ROAD RIGHT OF WAY

LINE 664.92 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID COUNTY ROAD RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 38°

09' 44" EAST 723.79 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE

SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE NORTH 0° 08' 44" WEST ALONG SAID EAST

LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 28, 218.67

FEET TO A STONE AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 89° 52' 44" WEST ALONG

THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID

SECTION 28, 1309.43 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

AND FURTHER EXCEPTING A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 2

SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON AND

STATE OF OREGON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A STONE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE

SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE SOUTH 0° 08' 44" EAST ALONG THE WEST

LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 28,

218.67 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 492; THENCE NORTH

38° 09' 44" EAST ALONG SAID COUNTY ROAD RIGHT OF WAY 281.47 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF

THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE

SOUTH 89° 08' 16" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID

SECTION 28, 174.49 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

NOTE: This Legal Description was created prior to January 01, 2008.

Map No.: 2S128C-00500

Tax Account No.: R1492192 and R547466

133

First American Title Insurance Company

Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Land Partition

Order No. 7019-3402741

Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Partition

Page 3 of 6 (Ver. 20080422)

EXHIBIT "B"

(Vesting)

Bruce D. Polley and Karen M. Polley, as tenants by the entirety

134

First American Title Insurance Company

Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Land Partition

Order No. 7019-3402741

Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Partition

Page 4 of 6 (Ver. 20080422)

EXHIBIT "C"

(Liens and Encumbrances)

1. The assessment roll and the tax roll disclose that the within described premises were specially zoned

or classified for Farm use. If the land has become or becomes disqualified for such use under the

statute, an additional tax or penalty may be imposed.

2. A Potential Additional Tax liability is due in the amount of $2,896.94 for the tax year 2019-2020

(Affects APN #R1492192)

3. A Potential Additional Tax liability is due in the amount of $367.19 for the tax year 2019-2020

(Affects APN #R547466)

4. Statutory powers and assessments of Clean Water Services.

5. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying within the limits

of streets, roads and highways.

6. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein:

Recording Information:

January 14, 1954 as Book 352, Page 329

In Favor of:

Portland General Electric Company, a corporation of Oregon

For:

Electrical lines, telephone lines and appurtenances

Affects:

Exact location not disclosed

7. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein:

Recording Information:

April 07, 1959 as Book 416, Page 167

In Favor of:

Portland General Electric Company, an Oregon corporation

For:

Electric power transmission lines

Affects:

Exact location not disclosed

8. Unrecorded leases or periodic tenancies, if any.

NOTE: Taxes for the year 2019-2020 PAID IN FULL

Tax Amount:

$3,575.87

Map No.:

2S128C-00500

Property ID:

R1492192

Tax Code No.:

088.13

NOTE: Taxes for the year 2019-2020 PAID IN FULL

Tax Amount:

$100.74

Map No.:

2S128C-00500

Property ID:

R547466

Tax Code No.:

088.09

NOTE: This Public Record Report does not include a search for Financing Statements filed in the Office of

the Secretary of State, or in a county other than the county wherein the premises are situated, and no

liability is assumed if a Financing Statement is filed in the Office of the County Clerk covering Crops on

the premises wherein the lands are described other than by metes and bounds or under the rectangular

survey system or by recorded lot and block.

135

First American Title Insurance Company

Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Land Partition

Order No. 7019-3402741

Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Partition

Page 5 of 6 (Ver. 20080422)

136

First American Title Insurance Company

Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Land Partition

Order No. 7019-3402741

Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Partition

Page 6 of 6 (Ver. 20080422)

DEFINITIONS, CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS

1. Definitions. The following terms have the stated meaning when used in this report:

(a) "Customer": The person or persons named or shown as the addressee of this report.

(b) "Effective Date": The effective date stated in this report.

property.

(d) "Public Records": Those records which by the laws of the state of Oregon impart constructive notice of matters relating to

the Land.

2. Liability of the Company.

(a) THIS REPORT IS NOT AN INSURED PRODUCT OR SERVICE OR A REPRESENTATION OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE TO

REAL PROPERTY. IT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT OR

PRELIMINARY REPORT, OR ANY FORM OF TITLE INSURANCE OR GUARANTY. THIS REPORT IS ISSUED EXCLUSIVELY

FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICANT THEREFOR, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR RELIED UPON BY ANY OTHER

PERSON. THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT FIRST AMERICAN'S PRIOR WRITTEN

CONSENT. FIRST AMERICAN DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS COMPLETE OR

FREE FROM ERROR, AND THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS PROVIDED WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, AS-IS,

AND WITH ALL FAULTS. AS A MATERIAL PART OF THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN IN EXCHANGE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF

THIS REPORT, RECIPIENT AGREES THAT FIRST AMERICAN'S SOLE LIABILITY FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY

AN ERROR OR OMISSION DUE TO INACCURATE INFORMATION OR NEGLIGENCE IN PREPARING THIS REPORT SHALL BE

LIMITED TO THE FEE CHARGED FOR THE REPORT. RECIPIENT ACCEPTS THIS REPORT WITH THIS LIMITATION AND

AGREES THAT FIRST AMERICAN WOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED THIS REPORT BUT FOR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

DESCRIBED ABOVE. FIRST AMERICAN MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY AS TO THE LEGALITY OR

PROPRIETY OF RECIPIENT'S USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN.

(b) No costs (including, without limitation attorney fees and other expenses) of defense, or prosecution of any action, is

afforded to the Customer.

(1) Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes

or assessments on real property or by the Public Records.

(2) Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the Public Records but which could be ascertained by

an inspection of the land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.

(3) Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the Public Records.

(4) Discrepancies, encroachments, shortage in area, conflicts in boundary lines or any other facts which a survey would

disclose.

(5) (i) Unpatented mining claims; (ii) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof,

(iii) water rights or claims or title to water.

(6) Any right, title, interest, estate or easement in land beyond the lines of the area specifically described or referred to

in this report, or in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways.

(7) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances or

regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use or enjoyment on the land; (ii) the

character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in

ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv)

environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations,

except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting

from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the Public Records at the effective date

hereof.

(8) Any governmental police power not excluded by 2(d)(7) above, except to the extent that notice of the exercise

thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land

has been recorded in the Public Records at the effective date hereof.

(9) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters created, suffered, assumed, agreed to or actually

known by the Customer.

3. Charge. The charge for this report does not include supplemental reports, updates or other additional services of the

Company.

137

Printed On: 03/02/2020, 2:49 PM

Requester: DL

Page: 1

First American Title Insurance Company

121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 300

Portland, OR 97204

Phone: (503)222-3651 / Fax: (877)242-3513

PR: NWEST

Ofc: 7019 (1011)

Final Invoice

To:

AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC

12965 SW Herman RD STE 100

Tualatin, OR 97062

Invoice No.:

1011 - 7019153171

Date:

03/02/2020

Our File No.:

7019-3402741

Title Officer:

Dona Lane

Escrow Officer:

Customer ID:

994563

Attention:

Michael Kalina

Liability Amounts

Your Ref.:

RE:

Property:

21720 SW Oregon Street, Sherwood, OR 97140

Buyers:

Sellers:

Bruce Polley, Karen Polley

Description of Charge

Invoice Amount

Guarantee: Subdivision/Plat Certificate

$275.00

INVOICE TOTAL

$275.00

Comments:

Thank you for your business!

To assure proper credit, please send a copy of this Invoice and Payment to:

Attention: Accounts Receivable Department

PO Box 31001-2281

Pasadena, CA 91110-2281

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

Exhibit

Additional Referenced Documents

Exhibit J: Additional Referenced Documents

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

Exhibit

Washington County-Sherwood Urban Planning Agreement

Exhibit K:

Washington County-Sherwood Urban

Planning Agreement

160

t7-

R6o

ngton County

City of Sherrvood

Ulban

Planning Area

Agreentent

Page

Washi

Washington

County

Sherwood

Urban

Planning

Area Agreement

THIS

AGREEMENT

is entered into by

WASHINGTON

COUNTY,

political

subdivision

the State

of Oregon,

hereinafter

referred

to as the

"COUNTY",

and

the CITY OF SHERWOOD,

an incorporated

municipality

the State of Oregon,

hereinafter

referred

to as the

"CITY".

WHEREAS,

ORS

190.010

provides that units

of local

government

may

enter into agreements

for

the

performance of

any oi

all functions

and activities

that a

party

to the agreement, its

officers or

agents,

have

authority

perform;

and

WHEREAS,

Statewide

Planning

Goal

(Land

Use Planning)

requires

that city, county,

state

and federal

agency

and special

district

plans

and

actions shall be

consistent

with the

comprehensive

plans

the cities and

counties

and regional

plans

adopted under

ORS Chapter

197;

and

WHEREAS,

the Oregon

State

Land Conservation

and Development

Commission

(LCDC)

requires

each

jurisdiction

requesting

acknowledgment

of compliance

to submit

agreement

setting

forth

the means

which comprehensive

planning

coordination

within the Regional

Urban

Growth

Boundary

(UGB)

will be

implemented; and

WHEREAS,

following

the Urbanization

Forum

process,

the COUNTY

through Resolution

Order

09-63,

and

the CITY

through Resolution

2009-046, agreed

that all future additions

the

UGB

during or

after

2010 must

governed and urbanized by

the CITY

in the COIINTY

and

also

agreed

urge Metro

to expand

the UGB only

to such areas

as are contiguous

incorporated

areas

of Washington

County;and

WHEREAS,

the State

legislature,

with House

Bill4078-A

in2014 and House

Bill2047

in 2015,

validated

the acknowledged

UGB

and Urban and

Rural Reserves

established through

the Metro

Regional

process involving both

the COUNTY

and the CITY;

and

WHEREAS,

the

COUNTY

and CITY

desire to

amend the Urban

Planning Area Agreement

(UPAA)

reflect the

changes

to the UGB,

the CITY's Urban

Planning Area,

and the need

for

urban

planning

ofthe

new

urban reserve

lands; and

WHEREAS,

the

COUNTY

and the CITY,

to ensure

coordinated

and consistent

comprehensive

plans,

consider

it mutually

advantageous

establish:

An Urban

Planning Area

Agreement

incorporating both

site-specific

Urban

Planning

Area

within

the UGB

within which both the COUNTY

and the CITY

maintain

an interest

in comprehensive

planning

and an

Urban

Reserve

Planning Area

outside

the UGB

where

both

the COUNTY

and the CITY

maintain an interest

concept

planning; and

Agreement amended

Washington County

Land Use

A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 821

Adopted September

26, 2017

161

Washington

County

City olShenvood

r Jrban

prannin

^*iåi

;ïïii

process for coordinating

comprehensive

planning and development

in the Ur-Uan

Planning Area

and concept

planning in the Urban

Reserve Planning

Area; and

Policies

regarding comprehensive

planning

and

development

in the Urban Planning

Area and

concept

planning in the Urban

Reserve

Planning Area; and

4. A

process

to amend

the Urban

Planning Area

Agreement.

NOW

THEREFORE,

THE COUNTY

AND

THE CITY AGREE

FOLLOWS

I. Location

of the Urban

Planning

Area and Urban

Reserve Planning

Area

The Urban

Planning

Area and Urban

Reserve Planning

Area, mutually

defìned by

the

COUNTY

and the CITY,

include

the areas designated

on the Washinglon County

Sherwood

UPAA

Map

"Exhibit

to this Agreement.

II.

Coordination

of Comprehensive

Planning

and Development

A. Amendments

to or Adoption

of a Comprehensive

Plan or

Implementing Regulation

Definitions

Comprehensive

Plan means a

generalized,

coordinated

land use map

and

policy

statement

the

governing

body

of a local

government

that interrelates

all

functional

and natural systems

and activities relating

to the use of lands,

including, but

not limited

to, sewer and water

systems, transportation

systems,

educational

facilities,

recreational

facilities, and

natural resources

and air and

water

quality

management

programs.

"Comprehensive

Plan" amendments

not

include small

tract comprehensive

plan

map changes.

Implementing

Regulation

means

any local

government

zoning ordinance,

land

division

ordinance adopted

under ORS 92.044

or 92.046

or similar

general

ordinance

establishing standards

for

implementing a comprehensive

plan.

"lmplementing

regulation" does

not include small

tract zoning map

amendments,

conditional

use

permits,

individual subdivision,

partitioning

planned unit development

approvals or denials,

annexations,

variances, building

permits

and

similar

administrative-type

decisions.

The COUNTY

shall

provide

the CITY

with the appropriate opportunity

participate,

review and

comment

proposed

amendments

to or adoption of

the

COUNTY

comprehensive

plan

implementing regulations.

The CITY shall

provide the

COUNTY

with the appropriate opportunity

participate, review

and comment

proposed amendments

to or adoption of the CITY

comprehensive

plan

or irnplementing

regulations. The

following

procedures

shall

be followed by

the COUNTY

and the CITY to notify

and involve one

another

in the

process to amend or adopt

a comprehensive

plan

implernenting

regulation.

Agreement

amended

Washington County

Land Use A-Englossed Ordinance

No. 821

Adopted September

20 l7

162

*^n"',3',i;"t;ìii,"rtii:li:'J,ï.""i

Page 3 of l0

The CITY or

the

COUNTY,

whichever

has

jurisdiction

over

the

proposal,

hereinafter the

originating agency, shall

notify the other agency,

hereinafter

the responding

agency, by

first class

mail or

as an attachment

to electronic

mail of the

proposed

action at the time such

planning

efforts

are initiated, but

in no case less than

thirty-five

(35)

days

prior

to the

first

hearing on adoption.

For COUNTY or CITY

comprehensive

plan

updates

with the

potential

to affect

the responding agency's

land use

transportation system,

the originating agency shall

provide

the responding

agency

with the opportunity

participate

in the originating agency's

planning

process prior

the

notif,rcation

period,

such as serving on

the

originating

agency's advisory

committee.

For COUNTY

or CITY comprehensive

plan

updates

with the

potential

affect

the responding agency's land

use or transportation system,

the

originating agency

shall transmit the

draft amendments to the responding

agency

for its review and

comment before finalizing.

The responding

agency shall

have ten

(10)

days after

receipt of a draft to submit comments

orally or

in writing. Lack of response

shall be considered

"no

objection"

the draft.

The originating

agency shall

respond to the comments made by

the

responding

agency either by a) revising

the

final

recommendations, or

b) by letter

to the responding agency explaining

why the comments cannot

addressed in

the final draft-

Comments from

the responding agency shall be

given

consideration as a

part

ofthe

public

record on the

proposed

action. Ifafter such

consideration,

the

originating

agency acts

contrary to the

position

of the

responding

agency, the responding

agency may seek appeal ofthe action

through the appropriate

appeals body and

procedures.

Upon

final adoption of

the

proposed

action by the originating

agency, it

shall transmit

the adopting ordinance to

the

responding

agency as soon as

publicly

available, or if not

adopted by ordinance, whatever other

written

documentation

is available to

properly

inform the responding agency of

the final actions taken.

Development Actions

Requiring Individual

Notice to Property Owners

l. Definition

Development

Action Requiring Notice

means an action by a local

government

which requires notifying by

mail the owners of

property

which could

potentially

affected

(usually

specified

as a distance measured

feet)

by a

proposed

development

action

which

directly

affects and is applied to a specific

parcel

parcels.

Such

development actions may include, but

not be limited to, small

Agreement amended by

Washington County

Land

Use

A-Engrossed OldinanceNo. 821

Adopted September' 26, 2017

163

"$:o:,f

;ii:i, ;r'i'å : liä;i:i

Page

tract zoning or

comprehensive

plan

map amendments,

conditional or special use

permits,

land divisions,

planned

unit developments,

variances, and

other

similar

actions

requiring a

quasi-judicial

hearings

process.

The COUNTY

will

provide

the

CITY

with the opporlunity to

review and

comment on

proposed

development actions requiring notice

within the

designated Urban

Planning Area and Urban

Reserve Planning Area. The CITY

will

provide the

COUNTY

with the opportunity to

review

and

comment on

proposed development actions requiring notice

within the CITY limits that may

have an effect

on unincorporated

portions

of designated

Urban Planning Area or

the COUNTY's

transportation network.

The

following

procedures

shall be followed

by the COUNTY and the CITY

notify

one another of

proposed

development actions:

a. The CITY or

the

COUNTY,

whichever has

jurisdiction

over the

proposal,

hereinafter

the originating agency, shall send by

fìrst class mail

as an

attachment to electronic mail a copy of

the

public

hearing notice or

comment

period

notice with no

public

hearing

which identifies the

proposed

development

action to the other agency, hereinafter the

responding agency, at the earliest opportunity, but

no less than ten

(10)

days

prior

to the date of the scheduled

public

hearing or

end

the

comment

period.

The failure of the responding

agency to receive a notice

shall not invalidate

an action if a

good

faith attempt

was

made by

the

originating

agency to notify

the

responding

agency.

b. The

agency receiving the notice may

respond

its discretion.

Comments

may be submitted

in written or electronic form or an oral response

may

made at the

public

hearing.

Lack

written or

oral

response shall be

considered

"no

objection" to the

proposal.

If received in

a timely manner, the

originating

agency shall include or

attach

the comments to the

written

staff report and

respond to any

concerns addressed by

the responding agency in such report or orally at

the hearing.

Comments

from the responding agency shall be

given

consideration

as a

part

ofthe

public

record

on the

proposed

action. If, after such

consideration,

the originating agency acts contrary to the

position

the

responding

agency, the responding agency may seek appeal ofthe action

through the appropriate appeals body and

procedures.

AdditionalCoordinationRequirements

The

CITY

and

the COUNTY

shall

do the following to notify one another of

proposed

actions

which

may affect

the

community, but

are not

subject

to the

Agreement amended by

Washington

County

Land

Use

A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 82 I

Adopted September

26,

2017

164

Wasllinglon County

City of Shenvood

Urban

Planning Area Agreernerrt

Page 5 of'l0

notification

and

participation

requirements

contained in subsections A and

above.

The CITY

or the COUNTY,

whichever has

jurisdiction

over

the

proposed

actions, hereinafter

the originating agency, shall

send

first class mail or

as an attachment

to electronic mail a copy of all

public

hearing agendas

which contain the

proposed

actions to the other agency,

hereinafter the

responding agency,

at the earliest opportunity, but

no less than three

(3)

days

prior

to the date of the scheduled

public

hearing. The failure of

the

responding

agency to receive an agenda shall

not invalidate an action

if a

good

faith attempt

was made

the originating agency

to notify the

responding

agency.

The

agency receiving

the

public

hearing agenda may respond at

its

discretion. Comments

may be submitted in

written or electronic form or

oral

response may be made

at the

public

hearing. Lack of

written or oral

response

shall be considered

"no

objection"

to the

proposal.

Comments from

the responding agency shall be

given

consideration as a

part

ofthe

public record on the

proposed

action. If, after such

consideration,

the originating agency acts

contrary to the

position

the

responding agency,

the responding agency may seek appeal

ofthe action

through the

appropriate appeals body and

procedures.

ilI. Concept

Planning for Urban

Reserve Areas

A. Definitions

I Urban

Reserve

means those lands outside

the

UGB

that have been so designated

by Metro

for the

purpose

of:

Future expansion

over a long-term

period (40-50 years),

and

The cost-effective

provision

public

facilities and services

when the

lands

are included

within the

UGB.

Urban

Reserve Planning

Area means those Urban Reserves

identified as

ultimately being

governed

the

CITY at such time

as the UGB is amended to

include

the Urban Reserve Area.

Urban

Reserve

Planning

Responsibility Undefìned means

those

Urban

Reserves that

the

CITY

and at least one other city may

have an interest in

ultimately

governing,

but

no final agreement has been reached. These areas

are

not considered

part

the Urban Reserve Planning Area.

B. The CITY's Urban

Reserve

Planning Area and the Urban Reserve

Planning

Responsibility

Undefined

are identified on

"Exhibit

A" to this Agreement.

w ash i n

gto

n ."

",rTguiïî",1t;i'¿Î.:i,:ä

rd i nan ce No. 8 2 r

Adopted September

26. 20

| 7

165

Washinglon

County

City

of Sherwood

Urban

Planning Area

Agreement

Page6oll0

The CITY

and COUNTY

shall be

jointly

responsible

for developing a concept

plan

for the Urban

Reserve

Planning Area

in coordination

with

Metro and

appropriate

service

districts.

The concept

plan

shall

include the following:

agreement

befween

the COUNTY and CITY

regarding expectations

for road

funding,

jurisdictional

transfer over

roadways to and from

the CITY and

COUNTY,

and

access management

for county

roads in the Urban Reserve

Planning

Area. The agreement

should

describe any changes to

the

CITY

and/or

COUNTY

Transportation

System Plans,

other Comprehensive

Plan documents,

or codes

that have

been adopted or

will be necessary to

implement this

agreement.

An agreement

between

the COUNTY

and CITY

that

preliminarily

identifies

the

likely

providers

of urban services,

defined in ORS 195.065.(4),

when the area

is urbanized.

D The

concept

plan

shall be

approved by

the CITY and acknowledged

by the

COUNTY.

E. Upon

completion

and acknowledgement

the concept

plan

the

CITY

and

COUNTY,

and the

addition of

the area into

the UGB by Metro, the affected

portion

of the Urban

Reserve

Planning

Area shall be

designated as

part

of the Urban

Planning

Area.

Inclusion

in the

Urban Planning

Area is automatic

and does not require

amendment

this agreement.

IV.

Comprehensive

Planning

and Development

Policies for Urban Planning Areas

A. Definition

Urban Planning

Area

means

the incorporated

area and certain

unincorporated areas

contiguous

to the incorporated

area

for which

the

CITY

conducts comprehensive

planning

and seeks

to regulate

development

activities to the

greatest

extent

possible.

The

CITY's

Urban

Planning

Area

is designated on

"Exhibit

A" to this Agreement.

The CITY shall

be responsible

for comprehensive

planning within

the Urban

Planning

Area.

The CITY

and COUNTY

will

implement

the applicable

Urban Reserve

concept

plan

and related

agreements

as the comprehensive

plan

prepared

for the Urban

Planning

Area

to ensure consistency

and continuing

applicability

with

the original

concept

plan.

If modifications

to the original

concept

plan

are made

during the comprehensive

planning

process, the

parties will update

the related agreements

to reflect these

changes,

which

may

include

transporlation,

access and funding.

The

CITY

shall

be responsible

for

the

preparation,

adoption and

amendment of the

Agreement amended by

Washington County

Land Use

A-Engrossed Ordinance

No. 82 I

Adopted Septembel

26, 2017

166

*^n"'$å'1"';iåi,"rîå:li:'åx"i

Page 7 of l0

public

facility

plan required by OAR 660-01I

within the Urban Planning

Area.

As required by

OAR 660-011-0010,

the CITY is

identified

the appropriate

provider of local

water, sanitary sewer,

storm sewer and transpor-tation

facilities

within the Urban

Planning

Area. Exceptions

include facilities

provided

by other

service

providers

subject

to the terms of any

intergovernmental agreement

the

CITY

may

have with other

service

providers;

facilities under

the

jurisdiction

of other

service

providers

not covered

by an intergovernmental

agreement; and future

facilities

that are more

appropriately

provided

by an agency other

than the CITY.

The COUNTY

shall

not approve

land divisions

within the unincorporated Urban

Planning

Area that are

inconsistent with

the

provisions

of the Future

Development

20-Acre District.(FD-20).

The COUNTY

shall not

approve a development

proposal

in the Urban

Planning Area

the

proposal would not

provide

for, nor be conditioned

provide

for, an

enforceable

plan

for redevelopment

to urban densities consistent

with the CITY's

Comprehensive

Plan

in the future upon

annexation

to the

CITY

as indicated by the

CITY Comprehensive

Plan.

H. The COUNTY

will not

oppose any orderly,

logical annexation of

land to the CITY

within

the

CITY's

Urban Planning

Area.

V. Amendments

to the Urban

Planning

Area Agreement

The following

procedures

shall

be followed

by the CITY and

the

COUNTY

to amend

the language of

this agreement

or the Urban

Planning Area Boundary:

The

CITY

or COUNTY,

whichever

jurisdiction

originates

the

proposal,

shall

submit

a formal request

for amendment

to the responding agency.

The formal request

shall

contain the following:

a. A statement

describing

the amendment.

A statement

of findings

indicating

why the

proposed

amendment

necessary.

c. If

the request is to

amend the

planning

area boundary, a

map that clearly

indicates

the

proposed

change and surrounding

area.

3 Upon

receipt of

a request for

amendment from the originating

agency, the

responding agency

shall schedule

review

ofthe

request before

the appropriate

reviewing body,

with

said

review to be

held within forty-fìve

(45)

days of the

date the request

is received.

Agreement amended by

Washington County Land Use

A-Englossed Ordinance

No. 82 I

Adopted September

26. 20 l7

167

*'*'"å"i:"t;ìä?ùt;'#ijl:äi:,i

Page I

The CITY and COUNTY shall make

good

faith efforts

to resolve requests to

amend this agreement. Upon completion

the review,

the reviewing

body may

approve the request, deny the request,

or make a determination

that the

proposed

amendment warrants

additional review. If it is

determined that

additional review is necessary, the following

procedures

shall be followed

the CITY and COTJNTY:

a. If inconsistencies noted by both

parties

cannot be resolved in the review

process

as outlined in Section V. A.

(3),

the CITY

and the COUNTY may

agree

initiate a

joint

study. Such a study

shall commence within thirty

(30)

days of the date it is determined

that a

proposed

amendment

creates

an inconsistency, and shall be completed within

ninety

(90)

days of

said

date. Methodologies

and

procedures

regulating the conduct

of the

joint

study shall

be mutually

agreed upon by the

CITY

and

the COUNTY

prior

to commencing the study.

b. Upon completion of the

joint

study, the

study and the recommendations

drawn from

shall be included within the record

the

review. The

agency considering the

proposed

amendment

shall

give

careful

consideration to the

study

prior

making a fìnal decision.

The

parties

willjointly review this Agreement

periodically,

or as needed, to evaluate

the effectiveness of the

processes

set forth herein and to

make any necessary

amendments. Both

parties

shall

make a

good

faith effort to resolve

any

inconsistencies

that may have developed since the

review.

If; after

completion of a sixty

(60)

day review

period

inconsistencies

still remain, either

party

may terminate this Agreement.

C. Any boundary changes due

annexation into the

CITY

or updates to

the UGB are

automatic and do not require an amendment to

"Exhibit

4".

VI. This Agreement

shall become effective

upon

full execution by the COUNTY

and the CITY

and shall then repeal and replace the Washington County-Sherwood

Urban Planning

Area

Agreement

effective March 3,2010. The

effective

date of this Agreement

shall be the last

date

ofsignature on the signature

page.

Agreement amended

Washington

County Land Use

A-Engrossed

Ordinance No.

821

Adopted

September

26- 2017

168

Washington

County

City

of Sherwood

Urban

Planning Area

Agreement

Page 9 of 10

IN WITNESS

WHEREOF

the

parties have executed

this Urban Planning

Area Agreement

on the

date set opposite

their signatures.

CITY OF

SHERWOOD

Date

l-Ì

-¡la¡ôr

üt^.{c.Hqçít,

(\uaciI

Approved as

to Form

Date

WASHINGTON COUNTY

AndYDwYck

Chair,

Úoard of Commissioners

Dut"

tt^

fio

n'q

?'zo'

Approved as

to Form

).=

Date

Agleement

amended by

Washington County

Land Use

A-Engrossed Ol'dinance

No. 821

Adopted September

26,

20 17

Recording

Secretary

169

A-Engrossed Ordinance

No. 821

Exhibit A

Page 10 of 10

City of Sherwood

Urban Planning

Area

Washington

County

Sherwood

Urban Planning

Area Agreenrent

Exhibit

t\WqtsouFsGlSPlffi

hilqCf ROJE

ÇTs\æi

7-PdedsuPS€ha@d_UPM-WR

_Ol

nxd

¡l¡

w^qûcrGcou{rv

'fl

v@h

tili,;iìrl;rij

c¡ty r¡m its

Urban PlanningArea

ffibif#åî::'

Urban Reserve.

Planning Responsi bi

lity

Undefíned

lrt

tl¡¡

Urban

Crorvth

Boundary

fl:Ï3

county Boundary

Railroad

Rightof Way

Future SW 124th Ave

Alignment

inch

2,000 feet

0 1,000

2,000

3,oo0

4,000

F€et

,.,4i

r--l--

rs:,sHERwóÀ*.

.-.i

-Ìl

:li,¡

i.J:-'

L.í

I'J

r f--_

_-...'''*..

¡ ;.

.-'

()l¿ckarx¿s

(.Jou*.í¡

170

Exhibit

Public Notice Information

Exhibit L: Public Notice Information

171

Sherwood, OR 97140

Po Box 820

Pride Properties Investments Llc

2S128C0-00100

Vancouver, WA 98665

8320 NE Highway 99

Orwa Sherwood Llc

2S128C0-00102

Seattle, WA 98108

6900 Fox Ave S

Sherwood Road Industrial Llc & Bldg B

2S128C0-00200

Seattle, WA 98108

6900 Fox Ave S

Sherwood Road Industrial Llc

2S128C0-00200

Sherwood, OR 97140

21433 SW Oregon St

J & L Rink Llc

2S128C0-00201

Sherwood, OR 97140

21433 SW Oregon St

J & L Rink Llc

2S128C0-00201

Sherwood, OR 97140

21433 SW Oregon St

J & L Rink Llc

2S128C0-00201

Sherwood, OR 97140

21433 SW Oregon St

J & L Rink Llc

2S128C0-00201

Sherwood, OR 97140

21433 SW Oregon St

J & L Rink Llc

2S128C0-00202

Sherwood, OR 97140

22560 SW Pine St

Sherwood City Of

2S128C0-00204

Hillsboro, OR 97124

169 N 1st Ave # 42

Washington County Facilites Mgmt

2S128C0-00400

Hillsboro, OR 97124

169 N 1st Ave # 42

Washington County Facilites Mgmt

2S128C0-00400

Sherwood, OR 97140

Po Box 1489

Bruce & Karen Polley

2S128C0-00500

Sherwood, OR 97140

Po Box 1489

Bruce & Karen Polley

2S128C0-00500

Sherwood, OR 97140

Po Box 1489

Bruce & Karen Polley

2S128C0-00500

Albany, NY 12207

66 S Pearl St FL 8

Key Equipment Finance Inc

2S128C0-00501

Albany, NY 12201

Po Box 22055

Keybank National Assoc

2S128C0-00501

Sherwood, OR 97140

21433 SW Oregon St

Allied Systems Company

2S128C0-00501

Gladstone, OR 97027

15 82nd Dr STE 210

John Niemeyer

2S128C0-00600

Portland, OR 97219

4825 SW Evans St

Kenneth & Carol Vandomelen

2S128C0-00700

Portland, OR 97267

4677 SE Concord Rd

Dahlke Lane Properties Llc

2S128C0-00701

Hillsboro, OR 97124

169 N 1st Ave # 42

Washington County Facilites Mgmt

2S129D0-00600

Sherwood, OR 97140

22560 SW Pine St

Sherwood City Of

2S132AA-00190

Sherwood, OR 97140

22210 SW Murdock Rd

Michael D & Lawrence D Kay Llc

2S132AA-01101

Sherwood, OR 97140

22560 SW Pine St

Sherwood City Of

2S132AA-06200

Sherwood, OR 97140

14602 SW Brickyard Dr

Keith Beaumont

2S132AA-06500

Sherwood, OR 97140

14616 SW Brickyard Dr

Jean Almond

2S132AA-06600

Sherwood, OR 97140

14616 SW Brickyard Dr

Jean Almond

2S132AA-06600

Sherwood, OR 97140

14630 SW Brickyard Dr

Bonnie Miller

2S132AA-06700

Sherwood, OR 97140

14642 SW Brickyard Dr

Cindy Nevill

2S132AA-06800

172

Sherwood, OR 97140

14650 SW Brickyard Dr

Orfilio & John Naranjo

2S132AA-06900

Sherwood, OR 97140

14658 SW Brickyard Dr

Audrey O Leary & Dawn Leary

2S132AA-07000

Sherwood, OR 97140

14672 SW Brickyard Dr

Meghan Jackson

2S132AA-07100

Sherwood, OR 97140

14680 SW Brickyard Dr

David Krempley

2S132AA-07200

Sherwood, OR 97140

14694 SW Brickyard Dr

Abdallah Salame

2S132AA-07300

Sherwood, OR 97140

14706 SW Brickyard Dr

Zeb & Alyssa Menle

2S132AA-07400

Sherwood, OR 97140

14718 SW Brickyard Dr

Stanley & Roxane Risner

2S132AA-07500

Carlton, OR 97111

707 N 7th St

Donald & Renate Liss

2S132AA-07600

Sherwood, OR 97140

14738 SW Brickyard Dr

Paul & Stephanie Spath

2S132AA-07700

Sherwood, OR 97140

14723 SW Brickyard Dr

Colleen & Debra Clemens

2S132AA-09000

Sherwood, OR 97140

14723 SW Brickyard Dr

Colleen & Debra Clemens

2S132AA-09000

Sherwood, OR 97140

14685 SW Brickyard Dr

Daniel Goodyear

2S132AA-09100

Sherwood, OR 97140

14673 SW Brickyard Dr

Kenneth & Patricia Higgason

2S132AA-09200

Newberg, OR 97132

32055 NE Corral Creek Rd

Holly Jackson & William Lewis

2S132AA-09300

Sherwood, OR 97140

14645 SW Brickyard Dr

Thomas & Penny Wade

2S132AA-09400

Sherwood, OR 97140

14637 SW Brickyard Dr

James Mcburnett

2S132AA-09500

Sherwood, OR 97140

14625 SW Brickyard Dr

James & Gail Mcgill

2S132AA-09600

Sherwood, OR 97140

14619 SW Brickyard Dr

Carol Riggs

2S132AA-09700

Sherwood, OR 97140

14615 SW Brickyard Dr

Blake & Joan Elison

2S132AA-09800

Sherwood, OR 97140

14603 SW Brickyard Dr

Dennis & Kristen Titko

2S132AA-09900

Ridgefield, WA 98642

2909 NE 166th Way

Mary Consani

2S132AA-10000

Sherwood, OR 97140

22106 SW Orland St

Orland Villa Llc

2S132AA-10000

Sherwood, OR 97140

14673 SW Brickyard Dr

Atley Estates Homeowners Assoc

2S132AA-10200

Sherwood, OR 97140

22115 SW Chesapeake Pl

Sandra & Richard Miles

2S132AA-11000

Beaverton, OR 97007

16980 SW Red Rock Way

Thomas & Suzanne Feller

2S132AA-11100

Sherwood, OR 97140

22095 SW Chesapeake Pl

Rebecca Osmond & Jason Berg

2S132AA-11200

Sherwood, OR 97140

22085 SW Chesapeake Pl

Samuel & Stesha Powers

2S132AA-11300

Sherwood, OR 97140

22075 SW Chesapeake Pl # 22077

Rose & Shawn Mcgrady

2S132AA-11400

Sherwood, OR 97140

14596 SW Oregon St

Robert & Amanda Taylor

2S132AA-11500

Sheridan, OR 97378

13751 SW Rock Creek Rd

Empyrean Real Estate Llc

2S132AA-11600

173

Daly City, CA 94015

59 Margate St

James & Colleen Buckner

2S132AA-11700

Sherwood, OR 97140

Po Box 1626

22060 Chesapeake Place Llc

2S132AA-11800

Sherwood, OR 97140

22070 SW Chesapeake Pl

Calla Lilly

2S132AA-11900

Sherwood, OR 97140

22080 SW Chesapeake Pl

Lisa & James Burton

2S132AA-12000

Sherwood, OR 97140

22090 SW Chesapeake Pl

Preston & Rochelle Griffin

2S132AA-12100

Sherwood, OR 97140

22100 SW Chesapeake Pl

David Hiser

2S132AA-12200

Sherwood, OR 97140

14260 SW Tonquin Rd

Gertrude Barnard

2S13300-00200

Sherwood, OR 97140

14260 SW Tonquin Rd

Gertrude Barnard

2S13300-00201

Sherwood, OR 97140

14250 SW Tonquin Rd

Wayne & Karen Depriest

2S13300-00300

Woodburn, OR 97071

395 Shenandoah Ln NE

Woodburn Industrial Capital Grou

2S13300-00400

Sherwood, OR 97140

14240 SW Tonquin Rd

Martin & Cynthia Walker

2S13300-00401

Sherwood, OR 97140

14250 SW Tonquin Rd

Wayne & Karen Depriest

2S13300-00403

Portland, OR 97232

911 NE 11th Ave

United States Of America Dept Of

2S13300-02500

Portland, OR 97232

911 NE 11th Ave

United States Of America & Dept Of The

2S13300-02500

Woodburn, OR 97071

Po Box 1060

Woodburn Industrial Capital Grou

2S133BB-00100

Portland, OR 97232

911 NE 11th Ave

United States Of America Dept Of

2S133BB-00200

Sherwood, OR 97140

22560 SW Pine St

Sherwood City Of

2S133BB-00300

Portland, OR 97232

911 NE 11th Ave

United States Of America Dept Of

2S133BB-00400

174

6/16/2020Report Generated:

21720 SW Oregon St, Sherwood, OR 97140

1000 ft Buffer

The present data and maps are intended for informational purposes only. Some information has been procured from third-party

sources and has not been independently verified. Individual parts are owned by their respective copyright owners and not by First

American. First American Title Company makes no express or implied warranty respecting the information presented and assumes no

responsibility for errors or omissions.

175

DRAFT

Ordinance 2020-008

January 5, 2021

Page 1 of 3, with Exhibits A-D (4 pgs)

ORDINANCE 2020-008

APPROVING ANNEXATION OF 10.90 ACRES TO THE CITY OF SHERWOOD AND 10.50 ACRES TO

CLEAN WATER SERVICES WITHIN THE TONQUIN EMPLOYMENT AREA, COMPRISED OF ONE

TAX LOT AND THE ADJACENT SW OREGON STREET AND SW TONQUIN ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY

WHEREAS, Bruce and Karen Polley, property owners of 21720 SW Oregon St. (TL 2S128C000500), have

applied for annexation of certain land, as described in Exhibits A, B, C, & D to this Ordinance, to the City

of Sherwood; and

WHEREAS, the property owner initiated this annexation in accordance with ORS Chapter 222 and SB

1573 (2016); and

WHEREAS, SB 1573 requires City approval without submission to the electors, regardless of any local

charter or ordinance requirements to the contrary, of annexation requests submitted by all owners of land

in the territory proposed to be annexed, when:

(a) The territory is included within an urban growth boundary adopted by the city or Metro, as

defined in ORS 197.015;

(b) The territory is, or upon annexation of the territory into the city will be, subject to the

acknowledged comprehensive plan of the city;

the city limits only by a public right-of-way or body or water; and

(d) The proposal conforms to all other requirements of the city’s ordinances; and

WHEREAS, the Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan, which includes the territory proposed to be

annexed, was brought into the Urban Growth Boundary in 2004 by Metro via Ordinance 04-1040B; and

WHEREAS, the City of Sherwood developed a concept plan for that area and adopted the concept plan

and implementing ordinances in 2010 via Ordinance 2010-014; and

WHEREAS, the lot (the territory) that is proposed to be annexed is contiguous to the current city limits;

and

WHEREAS, the total land proposed to be annexed to the City of Sherwood is 10.90 acres which includes

a 9.53-acre parcel and 1.37 acres of adjacent right-of-way and;

WHEREAS, a portion of the subject territory is not currently within Clean Water Services boundaries and

10.50 acres will be added to the Clean Water Services district boundary upon annexation under the

authority of ORS 199.510(2)(c); and

176

DRAFT

Ordinance 2020-008

January 5, 2021

Page 2 of 3, with Exhibits A-D (4 pgs)

WHEREAS, the City does not presently have any other ordinance requirements applicable to this

annexation request; and

WHEREAS, the properties proposed to be annexed are currently in unincorporated Washington County

and part of the Washington County Service Districts for Enhanced Law Enforcement; and

WHEREAS, Washington County and the City of Sherwood have entered into an agreement acknowledging

that the City of Sherwood should be the ultimate provider of urban services in the Tonquin Employment

Area; and

WHEREAS, these properties must be within the City limits in order to be developed for the urban uses and

densities planned for in the Tonquin Employment Area Concept Plan; and

WHEREAS, after proper legal notice, a public hearing was held on the proposed annexation by the City

Council on January 5, 2021, at which public comments and testimony were received and considered; and

WHEREAS, the Council reviewed and considered the staff report with proposed findings and conclusions

for the decision which is included as Exhibit 1 to the Council staff report.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SHERWOOD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.

The territory proposed to be annexed to the City of Sherwood is specifically identified in a

legal description (Exhibit A) and map (Exhibit B), and the territory proposed to be annexed

to Clean Water Services is specifically identified in a separate legal description (Exhibit C)

and map (Exhibit D),each of which are attached to this Ordinance.

Section 2.

The subject territory annexed by this Ordinance and described in Section 1 and Exhibits C

and D will be added to the Clean Water Services district under ORS 199.510(2)(c).

Section 3.

The applicant has demonstrated that the annexation all of the territory proposed to be

annexed meets all applicable requirements, as documented in Exhibit 1 to the City Council

Staff Report.

Section 4.

Upon annexation, the Comprehensive Plan zoning designation of Employment Industrial

(EI) adopted via Ordinance 2010-014 implementing the Tonquin Employment Area Concept

Plan, will apply to all of the territory proposed to be annexed.

Section 5.

Pursuant to ORS 222.520 and 222.120(5), the City Council declares that upon the effective

date of the annexation, all of the annexed territory will be withdrawn from the Washington

County Service Districts for Enhanced Law Enforcement.

Section 6.

All of the territory proposed to be annexed is hereby declared annexed to the City of

Sherwood.

Section 7.

This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

177

DRAFT

Ordinance 2020-008

January 5, 2021

Page 3 of 3, with Exhibits A-D (4 pgs)

Duly passed by the City Council this 5

of January, 2021.

_______________________

Keith Mays, Mayor Date

Attest:

Sylvia Murphy, MMC, City Recorder

AYE

NAY

Scott ____ ____

Griffin ____ ____

Brouse ____ ____

Young ____ ____

Garland ____ ____

Rosener ____ ____

Mays ____ ____

178

II~

AKS

ENGINEERING &

FORESTRY,

LLC

AKS Job #7971

12965

Herman Road, Suite 100, Tualatin,

97062

(503} 563-6151

(503) 563-6152

ENG1NEE!lfNG

&FORESJ'RY - O-

...;

- IN- :-

_A_

-N,- 0-R-- -

- N-

_U_V-

-, W- A- -- K-

- 0-R-- -

-N-

-0-R

---------'

EXHIBIT A

Legal Description

City

Sherwood Annexation

A tract

land located

the Southwest One-Quarter

Section 28, Township 2 South, Range 1

West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, and being more particularly described

follows:

Beginning at the southwest corner

said Section 28; thence along the south line

said

Southwest One-Quarter

Section 28, South 88°50'36" East 484.43 feet to the southwest corner

Document Number 2008-025922 and the True Point

Beginning; thence along the westerly

line

said Deed and the northerly extension thereof, North 24°57'57" West 110.53 feet to the

centerline

SW Oregon Street and the City

Sherwood city limits line; thence along said

centerline and said city limits line on a non-tangent curve to the left (with radial bearing North

34°03'55" West) with a Radius 236.00 feet, Delta

09°08'42", Length

37.67 feet, and a

Chord

North

°21

'44"

East 3 7 .63 feet; thence continuing along said centerline and said city

limits line, North 46°47'23" East 515.84 feet; thence along a curve to the left with a Radius

1312.33 feet, Delta

05°31

'00", Length

126.36 feet, and a Chord

North 44°01

'53"

East

126.31 feet; thence North

°16'23" East 562.

feet; thence North

°05'27" East 8.35 feet;

thence leaving said centerline and said city limits line, South 49°05'29" East 37.00 feet to the

northeast corner

said Deed on the southeasterly right-of-way line

Oregon Street

7 .00

feet from centerline); thence along the east line

said Deed, South 01°32'54" West 989.74 feet

to the south line

the Southwest One-Quarter

Section 28; thence along said south line, North

88°50'36" West 824.61 feet to the True Point

Beginning.

The above described tract contains 10.9 acres, more or less.

ANNEXATiON

CERTIFIED

BY.

-v==-

06/09/2020

,,.

JUN

1 5

2020

REGISTERED

PROFESSIONAL

LAND SURVEYOR

WASHINGTON

COUNTY

A & T

falt-1:_J__

CARTOGRAPHY

OREGON

JANUARY

12,

2016

MICHAEL

KALINA

....

89558PLS

RENEWS:

6/30/21

Ordinance 2020-008, EXH's A-D

November 17, 2020, Page 1 of 4

179

XHIBI

T B

TRACT

LAND

LOCATED

THE

1 / 4

SEC.

28,

T2S,

W.M.,

WASHINGTON

COUNTY,

OREGON

SCALE: 1

200

FEET

ANNEXATION

CERTIFIED

BY.

JUN

1 5

2020

WASHINGTON

COUNTY

A & T

CARTOGRAPHY

DOC.

NO.

94-047965

200

4-0

100

200

DOC.

NO.

201a-on469

06/09/2020

REGISTERED

"'I

PROF'ESSIONAL

LAND

SURVEYOR

fa,,i

1:_...<_

OREGON

JANUARY

12,

2018

MICHAEL

KALINA

89558PLS

RENEWS:

6/30/21

Dl\\'.l:

79 \

ANN

DOC.

NO.

2008-025922

AREA:

10.9

ACRES±

CURVE

TABLE

CURVE

RADIUS

DELTA

LENGTH

236.00'

9'08'42"

37.67'

1312.33'

5'31'00"

126.36'

CITY ANNEXATION AREA

AKS

ENGINEER

FORESTRY,

LlC

12965

HERMAN

RD,

STE

100

ALA

TIN,

97062

503.563.6151

WWW.AKS-ENG.COM

CHORD

N51'21'44"E

37.63'

N44'01

'53"E

126.31'

1311

Ordinance 2020-008, EXH's A-D

November 17, 2020, Page 2 of 4

180

II~

AKS

ENGINEERING &

FORESTRY,

LLC

AKS Job #7971

II'\..,

12965 SW Herman Road, Suite 100, Tualatin,

97062

- P: (503) 563-6151

(503) 563-6152

ENGINEERING

&FORESTRI' .....;.O.;.:

..;

..:

.;.

;.;

.,.

.;;,,

.;.

;.:,;

IN;.;., 0

.;;..

R.;.;·

;;.

.;.

;;.

;;..U_V_

-, W- A- - K- E-

IZE

-R-, 0-R-- -

- N-

-0-R

---------'

Exhibit

Legal Description

Clean Water Services Annexation

A tract

land located

the Southwest One-Quarter

Section 28, Township 2 South, Range 1

West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, and being more particularly described

as follows:

Beginning at the southwest corner

said Section 28; thence along the south line

said

Southwest One-Quarter

Section 28, South 88°50'36" East 651.35 feet to the southwesterly

right-of-way line

SW Tonquin Road (variable width right-of-way) and the Clean Water

Services district boundary line and the True Point

Beginning; thence along said boundary line

and said southwesterly

right-of-way line on a non-tangent curve to the left (radial bearing South

50°32'27" West) with a Radius

1412.56 feet, Delta

04°10'05", Length

102

.76 feet, and a

Chord

ofNorth

41°32'35" West 102.74 feet; thence continuing along said southwesterly right-of-

way line and said boundary line and the northwesterly extension thereof, North 43°37'37" West

116.00 feet to the centerline

SW Oregon Street; thence along said centerline and continuing

along said boundary line,

Nmth 46°47'23" East 466.48 feet; thence continuing along said

centerline and said boundary line, along a curve to the left with a Radius

1312.33 feet, Delta

05°31

'00", Length

126.36 feet, and a Chord

North

44°01

'53"

East 126.31 feet; thence

North 41°16'23" East 562.79 feet; thence North 41°05'27" East 8.35 feet; thence leaving said

centerline and continuing along said boundary line, South 49°05'29" East 37.00 feet to the

northeast corner

Document Number 2008-025922; thence along the east line

said Deed,

South 01°32'54" West 989.74 feet to the south line

the Southwest One-Quarter

Section 28;

thence leaving said boundary line and along said south line, North 88°50'36" West 657.70 feet to

the True Point

Beginning.

The above described tract contains 10.5 acres, more or less.

06/09/2020

REGISTERED

PROFESSIONAL

LANO SURVEYOR

µi-t:_.z_

OREGON

JANUARY

12,

2016

MICHAEL

KAUNA

89558PLS

ANNEXATION

CERTIFIED

BY.

-lF

JUN

1 5

2020

WASHINGTON

COUNn

A & T

CARTOGRAPHY

Ordinance 2020-008, EXH's A-D

November 17, 2020, Page 3 of 4

181

Exhibit D

TRACT

LAND

LOCATED

THE

1 / 4

SEC.

28,

T2S,

W.M.,

WASHINGTON

COUNTY,

OREGON

SCALE: 1

200

FEET

200

100

200

CLEAN

WATER

SERVlCES

DISlRICT

BOUNDARY

06/09/2020

REGISTERED

PROF'ESSIONAL

LAND

SURVEYOR

fa,,i~--<._

OREGON

JANUARY

12,

2016

MICHAEL

KALINA

89558PLS

RENEWS:

"II

ANNEXATION

CERTIFIED

-v::-

BY.

_____

JUN

1 5

2020

WASHINGTON

COUNTY

A & T

CARTOGRAPHY

DOC.

NO.

94-047965

DOC.

NO.

2008-025922

AREA:

10.5

ACRES±

CURVE

TABLE

CURVE

RADIUS

DELTA

LENGlH

1412.56'

4'10'05"

102.76'

1312.33'

5'31'00"

126.36'

CWS ANNEXATION AREA

///

S49'05'29•E

37.00'

DOC.

NO.

201a-on469

CHORD

N41'32'35"W

102.74'

N44'01

'53"E

126.31'

EXH

AKS

ENGINEERING

FORES1RY,

LLC

12965

HERMAN

RD,

STE

100

ALA

TIN,

97062

°'""

MHJ

CHKD,

MSK

AKS

JOB:

7971

503.563.

6151

WWW.AKS-ENG.COM

Ordinance 2020-008, EXH's A-D

November 17, 2020, Page 4 of 4

182

Download
Save PDF to desktop

Email
Email completed PDF

Send for Signing
Email for others to sign

Print
Print document

NAME

00 01.05.2021 City Council Mtg. Packet (City of Sherwood)

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank 00 01.05.2021 City Council Mtg. Packet (City of Sherwood) Form

Related forms

Fillable 00 01.05.2021 City Council Mtg. Packet (City of Sherwood)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank 00 01.05.2021 City Council Mtg. Packet (City of Sherwood) Form

Related forms

First 20 documents completely FREE!