Loading...
City Council Packet - 08/23/2005 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING. August 23, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I:\Ofs\Don na's\Ccpkt3 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Agenda Item No. For Agenda of G a`1. D5 COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 23, 2005, Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.. Council. Present: Mayor Dirksen;, Councilors Harding, Sherwood,' Wilson, and Woodruff. • STUDY SESSION > REVIEW THE SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR THE-CITY ATTORNEY Finance staff reviewed this agenda item: After review, City Council consensus was for staff to proceed with the scope of services and finalize the Request for Proposals (RFP). Staff will return to. the City Council on October 25 with ranked responses,to the RFP for Council review and to schedule'any presentations with the leading firms at the Council's discretion. > . Interim City Manager Prosser;.announced that the-City has been dropped from the lawsuit filed by the,Sung Koo Kim family. > MEASURE 37 TRAINING City'Attorney Ramis conducted *training on Measure 37, and r reviewed: history, basic provisions, Tigard's ordinance, hearing process, and recent developments.' > ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS o Procedural Review for Quasi Judicial Hearings,= City Attorney Ramis reviewed process 'for the City Council for the following agenda items: Agenda Item No. 8.- Consideration of Final Order - Tigard, First Baptist Church Agenda Item No. 9 Consideration of Final Orders Annexation of Four Properties. Request was received for' a' continuance. City Attorney Ramis recommended. City grant continuance request. (See Agenda Item No. 9) o It was noted that Executive. Sessions were scheduled before and after the Business Meeting. o It was noted that after call for Non- Agerida.Items (Item No. 1) Mayor will announce 'Family Week Activities and introduce Jennifer Ries. COUNCIL MINUTES -AUGUST 23, 2005: page 1 o Information was distributed outlining training offered by communication expert Sharon Ellison.. • Council Calendar: August 30 Tuesday 5th Tuesday Council Meeting - 7-9 p.m. - Tigard Water Auditorium September '5 Monday Labor Day Holiday - City: Hall Closed 11 Sunday City's Birthday - 44tH 10-18 Sun-Sun Family Week Celebration 13* Tuesday Council Business Meeting = 6:30 pm, Town Hall 20*. Tuesday. 'Council Workshop 'Meeting -6:30 pm, Town Hall 22' Thursday Citizen Leadership Series. 9 Sessions, Thursday evenings 27* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30, pm, Town Hall 30 Friday Council Strategic Planning Retreat Noon, 10305 SW 87th Avenue; Tigard, Oregon • . EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went: into Executive Session at 7:06 p:m. to consult with counsel about current or potential litigation under ' ORS 192.660(2)(h). Executive Session concluded at 7:23 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called-the City Council and. Local Contract'. Review'-, meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. 1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen; Councilor's Harding; Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance r 1.4, Council Communications & Liaison Reports:. None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: -None > Mayor announced Family Week activities and introduced Jennifer RiesAhe child'.who wrote to him to suggest a celebration of families. 2. PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Dirksen is'suedfol lowing -proclamations: COUNCIL MINUTES -AUGUST 23, 2005 page 2 2.1 Proclaim September; 2005 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery,Month 2.2 Proclaim September '16,`2005 as Stepfamily Day 3. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION O Eight citizens signed in to speak (sign in sheet is on file°in the City Recorder's office) about protection and retention of the Gage property for greenspace in the Bond Park neighborhood. At the . request of Mayor Dirksen, those who signed in selected Ken Dobson . as their spokesperson on this matter. Mr. Dobson spoke of the lack ` of neighborhood pocket parks and that the Gage property, under consideration for development, would be a great loss to the area. Council noted the City is aware of the need for more parks. In fact, on tonight's agenda, there is a resolution to be considered by the Council that will adopt guidelines to use'in the evaluation of the location and acquisition of park and greenway properties. More than $2 million has been allocated in this;year's capital improvement program for parks and greenspace acquisition. 9 Ron Ellis Gaut spoke of his frustration about the time. it has taken for the City to discontinue its efforts'to pursue the rail crossing (see Agenda Item No,. 4.3). He objected to the staff time and dollars spent on this matter,when the outcome was predictable. Councilor Wilson told Mr: Ellis Gaut that .the City was obligated to'pursue the matter in a due diligent manner to'meet contractual obligations associated with the purchase of land for the new library. George-and Betty Burke advised that an-issue regarding,their property, has been addressed': They noted their concerns and felt they had been harassed by one individual. They reported Judge O'Brien was very helpful.as they went about addressing the clean up of their property. City Council members thanked Mr. and Mrs: Burke. . for attending and noted they were glad to hear their side of this situation: Z Connie Raemaekers-and Elizabeth Peloquin addressed the Council with their support of the Tigard Skate Park, noting its importance in providing positive activities for youth., They appealed to the community for support. Tigard. Youth Advisory. Council (YAC) President Rob Williams offered the help of the YAC. ✓ 0 Alice Ellis Gaut spoke about the Gage_ property and said there had been attempts by the property owners to work out a property COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 23, 2005 page 3 transaction to retain this property as greenspace. This property is "dear" to the, neighborhood and would'be a shame to lose...- Ms. Ellis Gaut' advised she was pleased that the: City was , withdrawing its application for an at-grade'railroad crossing (see Agenda Item 4.3). 'She urged the property near the library be considered for preservation..- 9 Adam and Mckay Fleck spoke of their time as children playing and enjoying the beautyof the "Gage Grove." It was also noted that if this property is developed, additional population would impact the school system. Mayor Dirksen advised the dialogue on the Gage property would be more effective before the Hearings Officer as this is a land:use matter under review. FOLLOW UP TO PREVIOUS CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: Interim City Manager. Prosser reviewed the follow up to previous citizen communication received at the August 9, 2005, City Council meeting: Thomas -and Mary Bush spoke to the City Council about road standards. Community Development Director Hendryx confirmed that the Bush's had contacted him as suggested by Mayor.Dirksen. Gretchen Buehner spoke to the City Council about larger vehicles-parking in spaces designated for-compact cars, which was creating problems in the library parking lot. Interim City. . Manager'Prosser advised that Police Chief Dickinson told him this was more,a.courtesy problem than a violation. Efforts will be made to get the word out to patrons to. call this'issue to their attention to encourage their cooperation. ' Tigard Youth Advisory Council President Rob Williams reviewed the Consent Agenda. Motion by Mayor Dirksen, seconded by Councilor Woodruff, to adopt the Consent Agenda as follows: COUNCIL MINUTES -AUGUST 23, 2005 _ page 4 4. CONSENT AGENDA: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes.for July:26; 2005. 4.2. Adopt a Resolution Appointing Members to the City Center Advisory Committee - Resolution. No. 05 -'5.2,* A RESOLUTION APPOINTING..MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES TO .THE CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION ; 4.3 Withdraw the Wall'Street-R'ailroad~Crossing•Application 4.4 Adopt.a Resolution'Authorizing the MTIP: Funding -for the Greenburg Road Project to Be Held-in Reserve fora Future-City, Project - Resolution No. 05 _ 53 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MTIP FUNDINGFOR THE ' GREENBURG ROAD-PROJECT TO BE HELD IN RESERVEFOR'A FUTURE CITY PROJECT The motionwas'approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Harding: Yes.. Councilor Sherwood:'' ' Yes 'Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes 5. INTRODUCTION,OF NEW TIGARD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JEREMY MONLUX AND PRESIDENT PAM. .;BROWN. - . Chamberof.Commerce'Pam'Brown and, Executive Director Jeremy Monlux visited. with the City Council. They thanked.the- Council -for its past support and spoke of their efforts to'make the Chamber a proactive organization. ; Mr. Monluz noted the.Chamber membership,indicatedthat the City,presents a "pro-business" attitude. ' He.noted fiis goal was to work toward the Tigard area,becoming a destination. stop. for people in the region. He•passed along one/ business owner's request for assistance ,for visible business signage.' Mr. Monlux referred to the Chamber's 12@12 program held usually on the . . third Wednesday. of the month', and he requested representation.from the City. Councilor Sherwood said she would attend,the next 12@12. ,Mr... ` Monlux expressed interest in helping.with the leadership series in-the future. Mayor Dirksen.noted the first class session for'this year's series will be September '22. COUNCIL `MINUTES-- AUGUST 23,, 2005 " f?a9e 5 6. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING GUIDELINES TO USE IN.THE EVALUATION OF THE LOCATION AND ACQUISITION OF PARK AND .GREENWAY PROPERTIES Public Works Director Koellermeier presented the staff report on this agenda item. Council members.acknowledged the Park and Recreation Advisory Board for their work on this matter and also noted the proposed .resolution shall be used as a guideline to assist in making decisions about acquiring properties for parks and greenways. Motion by, Councilor'Woodruff, seconded by Councilor.,Harding, to adopt Resolution No. 05-54. RESOLUTION NO. 05-54 -A RESOLUTION ADOPTING GUIDELINES TO -USE IN THE EVALUATION OF THE LOCATION AND ACQUISITION OF PARK AND GREENWAY PROPEFZTIES The motion: was approved by a:unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Dirksen:' Yes . Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes 7. UPDATE ON LIBRARY OPERATIONS Library Director Barnes presented the.staff report. Council concurred with the recommendation for a reduction of the library's open hours from 58 hours to 55 hours per week. The change'would be to the Thursday open hours, Which will be Thursdays, 1-8 p.m. The Library's schedule will be: Sundays 1-5 p:m. Thursdays 1,-8.p.m. Mondays 10 a.m.-8 p:m. Fridays 10 a.m.-5 p.m:. Tuesdays 10 p.m.-8 p.m. .Saturdays 10 a.m.-5 p.m. Wednesdays.,10 a.m.-8 p.m. 8. Set Over from the August 9, 2005, . City Council meeting - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ORDER REGARDING THE APPEAL OF. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE TIGARD FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH EXPANSION After summation by Community Development Director Hendryx, City Council considered Resolution No. 05-55. COUNCIL MINUTES -AUGUST 23, 2005 page 6 Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adopt Resolution No. 05-55. RESOLUTION NO. 05-55.-A RESOLUTION AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING THE'TIGARD.FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH CONDITIONAL'. , USE PERMIT (CUP) 2004-00005/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW '(SLR) 2005-00005/$ENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR)"2005-00006 AND ADJUSTMENT.(VAR).,2005-00016;. ADOPTING FINDINGS AND' ' IMPOSING .CONDITIONS The 'motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood; Yes Councilor Wilson:. Yes Councilor.Woodruff: Yes 9. Continued from the August 9, 2005, City Council meeting - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ORDERS. REGARDING THE. E ANNEXATION *OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR PROPERTIES: MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION; ARLINGTON HEIGHTS 3. "SUBDIVISION, WILSON RIDGE SUBDIVISION', AND ALBERTA RIDER/SUMMIT RIDGE SUBDIVISION City Attorney:Ramis noted that the, City received a request. from Ms.-Julie. Russell: "Since. I am not able to attend the City Council Meeting, tonight, I :am. requesting the 'record :regarding the four, annexations be held open for an additional -7 days to allow time to review the staff. report and the City Attorney; response to 'my testimony:" .Council discussed' this 'matter briefly City Attorney :Ramis noted further written: comments must be limited to .the staff response and the, draft`set.of- findings: .,Motion, by Councilor ,Harding; seconded' by Councilor .Wilson, to reopen the. 'record. and leave it. open`.for seven. days to, allow. a.. response to the 'Annexation Responses from Staff and the. City Attorney, pursuant to ORS 197-,763(6)(c):.. The ..responses shall be `confined to addressing issues ,raised by the new evidence in those documents, if'any. 'It was further , moved to continue the hearing to the date certain of September 13, 2005, at 7:30 pm in the City Council chambers:, . COUNCIL.MINUTES ' AUGUST,23, 2005 page 7 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes,'. Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes The written testimony.as described above must be received by staff at City Hall by Tuesday, August'30, 2005, 5 p.m. .10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS:. None 11. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION:,The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 8:48 p.m`. to consider employment of a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, and to consult,with counsel about current or potential litigation under ORS 192.660(2)(a) and (h). 13. ADJOURNMENT - Motion. by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Harding, to adjourn the:meeting at 8:44 p.m. Catherine. Wheatley, City Recor r,' Attest: - /to. Mayor, ity of Tigard Date: l a ys • i:1etlm\c thy\c=12005k050823.doc COUNCIL MINUTES -AUGUST 23, 200,5 • page 8 Revised - 8/22/05 - Changes to Executive Session - Executive Sessions at beginning and end of meeting.. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL , MEETING AUGUST 23, 2005 6:30 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 Greeter: 'Bill D & Dennis K. PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate.sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor-at.the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either, the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in. any order after 7:30 p:m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing. and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or .503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; ' and Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: .503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA -,AUGUST 23, 2005 page 1 ADEN DA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 23, 2005 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > REVIEW THE SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY Finance Staff > MEASURE 37 TRAINING ■ City Attorney • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard-City. Council will go into Executive Session to consider employment of _a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, to discuss real property 'transaction negotiations and to consult with counsel about current or potential litigation under ORS .192.660(2)(a)(e) and (h). All discussions are , confidential . and those present may disclose. nothing from • the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be. held for the purpose of taking•any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are.. closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1 Call to Order- City Council 8z Local Contract Review Board 1.2. Roll Call 1,.3 Pledge of Alleglance 1.4 Council Communications 8i Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items . > Mayor to announce Family Week activities and introduce Jennifer Ries, if she is available. 7:35 PM 2: PROCLAMATIONS ■ Mayor Dirksen 2.1 Proclaim September,'2005 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month 2..2 Proclaim September 16, 2005 as Stepfamily Day COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 23, 2005 page 2 7:40 PM 3: CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) ■ Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication Tigard Youth Advisory Council President Rob Williams to review. 7:45 PM 4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes for July 26, 2005 4.2 Adopt a Resolution Appointing Members to the City • Center Advisory, Committee - Resolution No. 05 - 52 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES TO THE CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION 4.3 Withdraw the Wall Street Railroad Crossing Application 4.4 Adopt a 'Resolution Authorizing the MTIP Funding for the Greenburg Road Project to Be Held in Reserve for a Future-City Project - Resolution No. 05 - 53 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MTIP FUNDING FOR THE GREENBURG ROAD PROJECT. TO BE HELD IN RESERVE FOR A FUTURE CITY PROJECT • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent'Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on, those items which do not need discussion. 7:50 PM 5. INTRODUCTION OF NEW TIGARD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JEREMY MONLUX AND PRESIDENT PAM BROWN a. Staff Report: Police Staff b. Council Discussion 8:10 PM ..6. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING GUIDELINES TO USE IN THE EVALUATION OF THE LOCATION AND ACQUISITION OF. PARK AND GREENWAY PROPERTIES COUNCIL AGENDA. = AUGUST 23, 2005 page 3 a. Staff Report: Public Works Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 05 - 54 Councilor. I move for adoption of the proposed Resolution 05-54. Councilor: I second the motion: Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) RESOLUTION NO. 05754 - A RESOL UTION ADOPTING GUIDELINES TO USE IN THE EVALUATION OF THE LOCATION AND ACQUISITION OF PARK AND GREENWAY PROPERTIES Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution N6.95-54 please say "aye. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 05-54 please say "nay. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. 05- 54 (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes =failure to pass - 8:20 PM 7. UPDATE ON LIBRARY OPERATIONS a.. Staff Report: Library Staff b. Council Discussion 8:35 PM 8. Set Over from the August 9, 2005, City Council meeting _ t CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ORDER REGARDING THE APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE TIGARD FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH EXPANSION COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 23, 2005 page 4 ITEM ON APPEAL: On April 25`'', 2005 the Tigard Hearing's Officer held a public hearing to consider an application. for, conditional use approval to construct a 22,500 square-foot expansion of the existing church and associated' parking in.three phases. As part of Phase 2, .the applicant proposed to relocate the existing, driveway on SW Gaarde Street. The Hearing Officer adopted findings approving the Conditional Use Permit and Sensitive Lands' Reviews and denied the requested Adjustment to the access spacing standards. An appeal was filed on May 25, 2005 by the owner and applicant, on the basis that the Hearing's Officer misconstrued the . applicable law. More specifically, the appellant's argue that the Hearing Officer's decision failed to balance the approval criteria. LOCATION: 11075 SW Gaarde Street; WCTM 25 103DC, Tax ' Lot 1 100. ZONE: R-3:5: Low-Density Residential District. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED:- Community Development Code Chapters 18.370 and 18.705. a. Summation by Community Development Staff . b. Council Discussion c. Council Consideration: Resolution'No. 05 55 Councilor: I. move for adoption of the proposed Resolution 05-55 Councilor: 1 second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) RESOL UTION NO. 05-55 - A RESOLUTION AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING THE TIGARD FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2004-000051SENSITIVE . LANDS REVIEW. (SLR) 2005-000051SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2005-00006 AND ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00016, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS Mayor: Is. there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 05- 55 , please say "aye. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 05-55 please say "nay. " COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 23, 2005 page 5 Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. 05- 55 (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes =failure to pass 8:40 PM 9. Continued from the August 9, 2005, City Council meeting - . CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ORDERS REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR PROPERTIES: FILE NO.: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2004-00004 FILE TITLE: MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION REQUEST: The applicant, is . requesting to . annex two (2) parcels of land containing 6.94 acres into the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12415 SW Beef Bend Road, WCTM 2S 1 1.OCB, Tax Lot 500; and (No site address), WCTM 2S 1 l OCB, Tax Lot 100. FILE NO.: ZONE' CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2005-00001 FILE TITLE: ARLINGTON HEIGHTS 3 SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION REQUEST: A request to annex three (3) parcels of land containing 16.97 acres into the City of Tigard. LOCATION: On the north side of SW Beef Bend Road and the southern terminus of SW Summerview Drive., WCTM 2S109DA, Tax Lot 2100; and 2S 1 l OCB, Tax Lots 600 and 700. FILE NO.: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2005-00002 FILE TITLE: WILSON RIDGE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION REQUEST: A request to annex two (2) parcels of land containing 2.68. acres into the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 13350 and 13400 SW Bull Mountain Road; WCTM 2S 109AC, Tax Lots 100 and 200. FILE NO.:* ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2005-00003 FILE TITLE:. ALBERTA . RIDER, SCHOOL/SUMMIT RIDGE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION REQUEST: Annexation of 56 parcels containing approximately 20.75 acres into the City of Tigard. LOCATION: Alberta Rider School: WCTM 2S 109AC, Tax Lot. 2100. and COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 23, 2005 page 6 2S 109AD, Tax Lot 1300; and Remaining Portions of Summit Ridge Subdivision: WCTM 2S109DA, Tax Lots 8500, 8600, 8700, '8.8001,940011-9500,9600,9700,98001.9900, 100001 101007-. 102001 103001 115001 1 16.00, 11700, 11800, 11900, 120001 12100, 12200, 12300, 12400, 12500, 12600, 12700, 12800, 129001 130001 13400 and 13500, and WCTM 2S 109DB, Tax Lots 1000, 1900, 2100, 2200,_2300, 2400;. 2500, 2600; 2700, 2800, 2900,,3000,'3100, 3200, 3300, 3400,''3500, 3600,'. 3700, 3800, 3900 and.4000. ZONING OF ALL PARCELS: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate' attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and, institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards for annexations are set. out in Community Development Code Chapters. 18.320 and 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; ORS Chapter 222; and Metro Code Chapter 3.09. a. Summation by Community Development,Staff b. Council Discussion . C. Council Consideration: POSSIBLE MOTION 1 move to reopen the record and leave it open for seven days to allow a response to the Annexation, Responses from Staff and the City Attorney, pursuant to'ORS 197.763(6)(c). The responses shall be confined to addressing issues raised by the new evidence in those documents; if any. I further move to continue the hearing to the date certain of September 13, 2005, at 7:00 pm here in the,City Council chambers. OR Consider, the each ordinance separately: Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance, as amended, approving the . (say only one from list below - again, this will need 4 separate. actions): COUNCIL AGENDA,- AUGUST'23; 2005 page 7 1.. Mountain View Estates Annexation- Ordinance No. 05-09 2. Arlington Heights 3 Annexation -Ordinance No. 05-10 3. Wilson Ridge Annexation Ordinance No. 05-11 4..Alberta Rider Elementary School-Summit Ridge Annexation - Ordinance No. 05-12 Councilor: 1 second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) (Ordinance titles are listed below) ..Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the, City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. , City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: Ordinance No. 05- '(is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or' however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = fail Ordinance No. 05 - 09 (Mountain Estates Subdivision Annexation) An Ordinance Annexing 6.94 acres, approving Mountain View Estates Annexation (ZCA 2004-00004), and withdrawing property from the Tigard Water District,.Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, Washington County Urban' Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and, the Washington County Vector Control District Ordinance No. 05-' 10 (Arlington Heights 3 Subdivision. Annexation) An•Ordinance Annexing 16.97 acres, approving Arlington Heights 3 Annexation (ZCA 2005-00001), and withdrawing property from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhaneed.Sheriff's Patrol District; Washington County Urban. Roads, Maintenance . District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District Ordinance No. 05-, 11 (Wilson Ridge Subdivision Annexation), An Ordinance Annexing 2.68 acres, approving Wilson Ridge Annexation (ZCA 2005- 00062), and withdrawing property from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, Washington County Urban.Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1; and the Washington County Vector Control District „ Ordinance No. 05- 12. (Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge Annexation) An Ordinance Annexing 20.75 acres, approving Alberta Rider Elementary " School/Summit Ridge Annexation (ZCA 2005-00003), and withdrawing property from COUNCIL AGENDA = AUGUST 23, 2005. page 8 the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District 9:00 PM 10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 11. NON AGENDA ITEMS 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to consider employment of a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, to discuss real property transaction negotiations and to consult with counsel about current or potential litigation under ORS 192.660(2)(a)(e) and (h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news, media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 9:15 PM 13.' ADJOURNMENT iAadm\cethy\c 0005\050823).doc COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 23, 2005 page 9 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS. MEETING August-23, 2005 - 6:30 P.M. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > REVIEW THE SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY ■ Finance Staff > MEASURE 37 TRAINING ■ City Attorney • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to consider employment of a public •officer, employee, staff 'member or individual agent, to discuss real property transaction negotiations and to consult with counsel about current or potential litigation under ORS 192.660(2)(a)(e) and (h). 'All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. > ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS o Procedural Review for Quasi Judicial Hearings - Agenda Item No. 8 - Consideration of Final Order - Tigard First Baptist Church Agenda Item No. 9 - Consideration of Final Orders - Annexation of Four Properties POSSIBLE MOTION I move to reopen the record and leave it open for seven days to allow a response to the Annexation Responses from Staff and the City Attorney, pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(c). The responses shall be confined to addressing issues raised, by the new evidence in those documents, if any. I further move r to continue the hearing to the date certain of September 13, 2005, at 7:00 pm here in the City Council chambers. o Executive Session Also Scheduled After Council Business Meeting. o After call for Non- Agenda Items. (Item No. 1) - Mayor to Announce Family Week Activities and Introduce Jennifer Ries, if she is able to attend. o Distribute Information - Communication Expert - Sharon Ellison Council Calendar: August 30 Tuesday 5' Tuesday` Council Meeting - 7-9 p.m. - Tigard Water Auditorium More on next page... it . Hall Closed ber Labor Day Holiday. $eptem 5 IVlondaY , th Sunday City'SIY BWee Ge ebration -town Hall 11. ram Meeting = 6:30 pm, Town Hall 10.18 Sun-Sun . Council Business Meeting - 6.30 pm, Thursday evenin9 13* -Cuesday Council Workshop Series - 9 SO Pm, Hall 87th 20* Tuesday Citizen Leadersh-IR e rtes - g. O Pm,Noon 10305 SW 22 Thursday Council,Business Retreat - 27* Tuesday Council Strategic Planning 30 Friday Avenue, Tigard, Oregon Executive Session - The Public Meetings. Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited.situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as' "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192:660 (2) (a) - Employment of. public officers, employees and agents, if the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660(2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and'employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660(2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660(2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.:) 192.660(2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660(2) (f) - Exempt public records -'to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon Revised. Statutes. 192-660(2) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660 (2) (h) -Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660(2) (1) To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards; criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment- relatedperformance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. . 192.660;(2) (j) Public investments'- to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or, businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660(2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 192.660 (2)'(1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board. 192.660 (2)-(m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. iAadm\cathy\council\pink sheet - study session agendas\2005\050809.doc r Cathy Wheatley - motion082305.doc. Page 1 POSSIBLE MOTION I move to reopen the record and leave it open for seven days to allow a response to the Annexation Responses from Staff and the City Attorney, pursuant to ORS] 97.763(6)(c). The responses shall be confined to addressing issues raised by the new evidence in those documents, if any. I further move to continue the hearing to the date certain of September 13, 2005, at 7:00 pm here in the City Council chambers. • is Cathy Wheatley Update for tonight's meeting Page From: Joanne Bengtson n R To: cradir@colmac.com UIJ~ . /Q \ V Date: 8/23/2005 12:08:27 PM Subject: Update for tonight's meeting Hi Mayor- Lori and Jennifer Ries will be attending the meeting tonight so you can meet Jennifer and advertise the. Family Week event. Attached is a press release that was sent last week - but it recaps all the information. Let me know if you need anything else. -Joanne CC: Cathy Wheatley; Liz Newton CITY OF TIGARD PRESS RELEASE 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 For Immediate Release Contact: Liz Newton City of Tigard 503-718-2412 Liz@ci.tigard.or.us TIGARD'S FAMILY FESTIVAL Join us for a week of family-friendly activities and events! Jennifer Ries, a Mary Woodward 2"d grader, wrote a letter to Mayor Craig Dirksen in February suggesting that he make a holiday called Family Day. The letter, and Mayor Dirksen's response - "a great idea" were featured in the May 2005 Cityscape and Family Festival was born! Jennifer's entire family and several other community members started planning in May and Family Day is now a whole week of family - friendly activities planned for September 10-17, 2005. The schedule of events is: Skate Park Fest, Sat. 9/10 Noon to 8 p:rn. - City Hall parking lot site. Free music, games and skate competitions. Bring empty pop cans/bottles to support the Skate Park! Ice Cream Social, Sun 9/11 6 p.m. - 8'p.m. - Library Community Room sponsored.by Tigard 2000 Lions. Honor those serving overseas in the military; celeb'rate•the City's birthday with free ice cream treats and a short fireworks display! Bring used eye-glasses or hearing aids in any condition for the.Oregon Lions Sight and'.Hearing Foundation. Restaurant Discount, Mon. 9112 - a)I Day Enjoy family discounts at these restaurants: Cafe Allegro, Coffee Cabana, Davidson's, Hometown Buffet, La Tapatia and the.Tigard Sub Shop. Call for specific discounts. Family Movie Night Mon. 9112 7 p.m. -Tigard Cinemas. Bring the whole family (and a can of food) to-see a, first run family move.. Free! Story Time! Tues.: 9/13 7 p.m..,- Library Community Room. Enjoy the,storytelling of Alton Chung. Birthday cupcakes will be served. Free! Music Night, Wed. 9114 7 p.m'. - Library Community Room Page 1 of 3 FAX TO: ❑ TIGARD TIMES O OREGONIAN ❑ REGAL COURIER C:\DOCUME-1\CATHY.000\LOCALS-1\TEMP\FAMILY WEEK PR TO THE MAYOR FOR 050823 COUNCIL MTG.DOC ❑ CITY WEB PAGE ❑ OTHER: Enjoy the music of the Tualatin Valley Community Band & the Tigard High"Jazz Ensemble. Family History Night, Thur. 9115 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. - Tigoodnbi;lxary more details to come. From 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. genealogy specialists will be on.hand to help you do a computerized search of your family's history. Free! Beginning at• 7p.m., families can create craft projects together! , Game Night,, Fri. 9/16' 7 pm - Tigard High School Cheer on the Tigers as they play Central Catholic. 5K Run/Walk; Sat. 9/17 9 a.m. -starts at City 'Hall, ends at LDS Church on North Dakota. This is a free family friendly race. Strollers encouraged! Family Heritage Day, Sat. 9117 1 p:m. to 6 p.m. - Library Community Room. Enjoy free music,,dance and food from cultures that reflect our families' heritages. There will be canned food collection boxes at each event for the St. Vincent de Paul food pantry at St. Anthony's to benefit local families. In recognition of the City's 44' birthday we'd like to collect 44,000,pounds of food! The members of the citizen steering'committee are: Jennifer, Lori; David, Dan & Katie Ries, Myrna Boyce, Phil Clifford, Sharon Rollins, Mrs. Gerlinda Lamer, Hieu Pham, Evelyn Alexander, Mark. & Melissa NewMyer, Connie Ramaekers and Duane Roberts. For all the details on Family Festival activities, check out.the City's webpage www.ci.tigard.or.us, the September Cityscape or call Liz Newton at 503-718-2412. \ Page 2 of 3 FAX TO: ❑ TIGARD TIMES O OREGONIAN O REGAL COURIER C:\DOCUME-1\CATHY.000\LOCALS-1\TEMP\FAMILY WEEK PR TO THE MAYOR FOR 050823 COUNCIL MTG.DOC O CITY WEB PAGE O OTHER: FUN! FUN! FUN! comp TIGARD SKATE FEST Skateboarding ~The Anti-Drug KICK OFF FOR TIGARD FAMILY WEEK-September loth thru 11th SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 In Front of Police Station • Skate Exhibitions 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. • Puppet Shows • Drug & Alcohol Prevention materials T • Great Food • Game Booths • Face Painting i • Prizes a Q ~n • Competitions • Clowns • Obstacle Course COME SUPPORT THE Dunk Tank NEW TIGARD SKATE PARK Moon Bouncer ADMISSION FEE • Live Music Empty pop can(s) or bottle(s) Come help us plan this for refund or a cash donation fun event. We meet on Bring us your bags of empty cans and Wednesdays.. bottles taking up space in your garage For Information call: Check out our web site 503-431-4022 or www.tigardskatepark.com 503-620-1904 m w.....;.w _ . Cathy Wheatley FW. Annexation Testimony Page 1 From: "Julie Russell <jarusse1159@comcast.net> . To: <cathy@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Craig Dirksen" <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Nick Wilson" <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Sydney Sherwood" <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Tom Woodruff' <tomw@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/23/2005 11:24:07 AM Subject: FW: Annexation Testimony Dear Council and Cathy, Since I am not able to attend the City Council Meeting tonight, I am requesting the record regarding the four annexations be held open for an additional 7 days to allow time to review the staff report and the City Attorney response to my testimony. Thank You, Julie Russell From: Julie Russell [mailto:jarussel159@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:58 AM To: 'cathy@ci.tigard.or.us'; Craig Dirksen; Nick Wilson; Sydney Sherwood; Tom Woodruff Subject: Annexation Testimony Dear Cathy, Please submit my written testimony regarding the annexation of the four properties on the agenda last week. My testimony is attached. Best Regards, Julie Russell Cathy Wheatley -reply to four Annexations.doc N, Pa e 1 9 August 16, 2005 ' Julie Russell 12662 SW Terraview Dr ' Tigard, OR 97224 Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am submitting my written testimony to oppose the annexation of the four properties G (Mountain View Estates, Arlington Heights 3, Wilson Ridge and Alberta Rider/ Summit Ridge.) I testified against this annexation on August 9, 2005 and request that my written testimony be made part of the public record. I would have hoped that the council would, have considered the defeat of the Bull Mountain annexation vote in Nov. of 2004. Where 89% of the residents of the mountain clearly stated that they did not want to be annexed to Tigard. It is quite clear from your aggressive strategy that Tigard intends to proceed by forcing builders to annex by denying building permits, unless they agree to annex.. It is also quite clear that you intend to create irregular boundaries 'and islands, thus taking away property owner's right to vote on annexation decisions. This' is abusive and bad public policy. The Oregon legislature did pass some laws this session to change annexation policy. HB 2484 guarantees a dual majority vote, and SB 887 prevents island annexation for at least two years. I think Tigard needs to be.careful to follow the intent of these laws.that have been passed and will continue to be passed to protect the rights of residents to choose whom will govern them. I disagree with Tigard's, assumption in the Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1. The city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure'that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Tigard doesn't have or recognize - any Neighborhood Planning Organizations in the unincorporated area, (Urban Service Area), and Tigard has admitted they do not recognize CP04B. CP04B is the Citizen Participation Organization for Bull Mountain and parts of Tigard. Tigard has openly stated they will not send city staff to CP04B meetings and do not acknowledge the CPOs as they are organized by Washington County. As a result, unincorporated Bull Mountain residents have no recognition in community organizations in the city. Tigard limits the involvement of unincorporated Bull Mountain residents on committees in Tigard, and refuses to appoint those residents to various committees, such as the budget committee. I believe this violates the policy. Also Tigard does not involve citizens in the pre-application meetings, unlike Lake Oswego. Tigard did not notify every property owner in Arlington Heights 1 and 2 regarding this hearing, Those property owners could be affected if this annexation passes, as they will become an island, and could be annexed without a vote. I dispute Tigard's'findings in Policy 10.1.2: Tigard admits that none of these annexations eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated territory. Tigard states that these annexations will not create an irregular boundry. This proposed annexation will definitely create irregular boundaries and difficulties for service providers to know if the property is inside or outside of city limits. The Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge proposal • Cathy Wheatley -reply to four Annexations.doc Page 2 states that it is addressing a situation where parcels fall in and outside of city limits. Their formation is the result of disjointed annexation and plat approval timing. This was due to the annexation in Dec. 2004 that again created irregular, inconsistent boundaries. The Tigard Code 10.1.2 specially states the requirement a.'The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated territory, or b. The annexation will not create an irregular•boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside of city limits. These four annexations do not comply with either of these requirements. The Washington County... Sheriffs Department did not have the opportunity to comment on these annexation requests and'the affect on the service of the area, and the affect of the withdrawal of those properties from the Enhanced Sheriff s Patrol District. I dispute CDC Section 18.320.020. This area has been identified'as severely park deficient by Washington County in the Bull Mountain Community Plan in 1983, and the' City of Tigard. There are no solutions for sufficient capacity to remedy the lack of parks.. Annexation to Tigard, by allowing additional homes with no identified parks or open space only increases this deficiency. Tigard has a goal of providing 11 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, but currently only has 8 acres per 1,000 residents. These annexations only'create more of a park deficiency for Tigard. I also dispute the fact that the roads and transportation plan can handle the additional capacity created by'these subdivisions. Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend Road are the only access points to Hwy 99, which is at or near capacity at every intersection through Tigard per ODOT. Additional building permits only make the already overloaded Highway 99 worse. These subdivisions also give access to collectors and aterials of Beef Bend Road and Bull Mountain Road, which the Washington County'code and transportation plans say few access points should be granted. I dispute the timing and assignments of the zoning designations as they completely.ignore the Bull Mountain Community Plan zoning, which still identifies the slopes and summit as being low density, not medium density, and the zoning per the Bull Mountain Community Plan is still R-6, or 6 lots per acre not 7. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. So.why was. Summit Ridge allowed to build at R-7 designations, when it was not'annexed to Tigard and still under Washington County zoning of R-6? I dispute the fact that all residents were notified of the proposal to annex parts of Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend Road. This is'not clear on the vicinity map. Which roads or parts of roads are actually-being annexed? Who was notified? All surrounding . residents and affected property owners? When did parts of Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend Road become city streets? The Washington County Transportation Plan still identifies them as county streets. I do not know of any residents or Citizen Participation Organizations being advised that any roads in the area have experienced a change in . jurisdiction. What about the residents east of SW 133`d9 This could create an island for all of those Cathy Wheatley reply to our Annexations.doc Page 3 f property owners. What comments were received by the Washington County Sheriff's department and other service providers, about these irregular boundaries and islands? Who will service those areas, and how will this confusing patchwork of boundaries be serviced? I dispute Metro 3.09 conclusions. The proposed annexation will interfere with the timely, orderly and economic provisions of public facilities and services. Public facilities and ' services are provided by various service districts and do not require annexation in order to continue those services. Ioppose the annexation file of Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge Annexation. Alberta Rider is a public school and should not be required to annex to Tigard prior to receiving a final building permit. I believe again this is very bad public policy and quite probably illegal. The only thing to be gained by requiring Alberta Rider Elementary School to annex is the surrounding of neighboring property,. and the creation of islands to continue the aggressive annexation policy of Tigard. Also the property owner Alberta Rider did not consent to annex to Tigard. Alberta Rider and Summit Ridge should not be processed in the same annexation, one is owned'by the Tigard/Tualatin School District and the other is a private developer. I oppose the Summit Ridge annexation, as Arbor Summit and Summit Ridge were not bordering city limits, when they were annexed in Dec. of 2004. .1 also dispute the statement that a double majority meihod was used for one of the parcels'of Summit Ridge, Venture Properties is not an elector in the area, but simply the developer, so how did that election take place, and how can the future residents be held accountable to this hostile annexation? 1 disagree with the statement that some of the property in Arbor Summit and Summit Ridge were inside the. city and some outside of the city. None of this property was inside of the city prior to the development of the property and-annexation in Dec. 2004. I oppose the annexation of the Arlington Heights 3 subdivision on the grounds that they are annexing 'to the Arlington Heights Homeowners Association and are part of the Arlington Heights Neighborhood. Arlington Heights 1 and 2 are not annexed to Tigard and were approved under county land use regulations in 1997. 1 don't believe Tigard' can legally annex only one portion of a subdivision. • f Respectfully, Julie Russell Powerful Non,DJcnsive Communication" Powerful Non-Defensive "More than a_ technique-a new WaIJ, Of'6eing' Communication is the missing link that bridges the gap between r Sharon 'Ellison is an internationally " known' communication our desire to communicate exec- y . tively and our ability to actually expert, author, award-winning speaker, and consultant- do so. - Robert Brownstone, Corporate She has developed a cutting-edge communication process that has the Educational Specialist, Fortune soo company power to eliminate defensiveness. y.-- „ How much does defensiveness cost you? As an Individual- self-esteem, respect, relationships' As a Professional - productivity, clients, success As an Organization - team performance; revenues, reputation As a Community = peace, abundance, solutions for. global issues i J' Defensiveness is pervasive! And it's too expensive=the tangible and intangible costs are astronomical. The Problem-an historic epidemic 1 believe the process you teach is Only a small percentage of a -population has to have a disease for it to be the most powerful and effective classified as an epidemic. Yet the vast in of people on earth react communication technique lhave defensively on a regular basis.'Defensiveness may be the most pervasive seen. ! wonder what would have epidemic on earth. happened if you had been at Camp David (for the Middle East peace talks]. "y are people so defensive? According to Sharon Ellison, for 2,500 ' ~ , -Maureen A.Tighe,United States, years the "model"or "system" we have been using for how to talk to Trustee, U.S.Department of each other has been based on the rules of war. Thus, defensiveness is justice the autoinatic,protective response to conflict.,Power struggle is the out- . come,causing people to become controlling and manipulative. Your insights on our society's ways of dealing with conflict left me; The Solution-power without manipulation incredulous at how much energy we are constantly wasting. Sharon Ellison has devoted her life developing a new paradigm for Your ideas mapped out a way to communication. With PNDC, people can listen and speak with greater. handle tough situations in life clarity and power without ever having to become defensive- even if without having to:resort to'power others don't "cooperate The process is revolutionary, freeing, struggles. -Jesse Combs,Biomedical disarming, and contagious! Research Associate,Systemix Inc., Palo Alto,CA (510) 655-8086 email:sharon@pndc:com www.lindc.com 4100-10 Redwood Road #316,Oakland,CA 94619' Joanne Bengtson - Resume.doc Page 1 Resume Sharon Ellison; M.S.- 5531 Kales Avenue, ' Oakland, CA 94619 Phone: (510) 655-8086 Fax: (510) 655-8082 email: sharon@pndc.com web-site: www.pndc.com, Date of Birth: June 29, 1943 Present' Position: Director, The Institute for Powerful Non-Defensive Communication Previous Positions: Therapist in private practice and communication consultant, Eugene, OiZ.(1975-1992) Schoiar-In=Residence, St. John's University, ; Collegeville, MN (1986-1987) Co-Director, Title I Social Skill Building Program, Fern Ridge School District, Veneta, OR (1974- 1975) -Title I, Parent Training Instructor and Title VI Play Therapist,; Fern Ridge School District,, Veneta', OR (1973-1974) Intake Counselor; Lane County,Juvenile Court, Eugene, OR (1969-1970) Field Counselor, Marion County Juvenile Court, Salem, OR (1966-1969) Group Worker,, Marion County Juvenile Court, Salem, OR, (1965-,1966) i , Educations. B.A-. (Sociology): Willamette University, Salem, OR (June, 1965) Junior Year Abroad Program, University of Stockholm, Stockholm,'Sweden (1963-1964) M.S. (Interdisciplinary, Studies in Juvenile Corrections):. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR (1973) Joanne Bengtson Resume.doc Page 2 Professional Experience: l During the period from 1960 until 1975, I was employed by various agencies in . a number of capacities, including counselor, program development coordinator, and government project director. Between 1975 and 1992 I maintained a private counseling practice and served as a consultant, workshop facilitator, and keynote speaker for various businesses, educational institutions, government organizations, social service,agencies;.and other professional groups. Starting 1992, I expanded my efforts as 'a keynote speaker, consultant and i workshops facilitator on, teaching the Powerful, Non-Defensive Communication (PNDC) process I developed over a period of thirty years in the counseling field. I am currently Director of The Institute for Powerful Non-Defensive Communication. The following are examples of the various organizations for which I have provided conference keynotes, consultations, and workshops.'They are organized alphabetically, by profession, including: Administrative Organizations, Business and. Corporate, Community Organizations, Diversity, Education, Government, Finance,'Health Care, Law, Law Enforcement, Mediation, Social Service and Therapy. Partial •Clientlist. Administrative Organizations:' Association of Legal. Administrators (ALA) California Association of 'Students' Financial Aid Administrators Community College Job Placement Personnel, OR International Association of Administrative Personnel (IAAP) Office of Community College Services, Salem;' OR Oregon Community College Presidents' and Board's Secretaries Oregon School Business Officials, Oregon State Personnel Management Association Business and Corporate: e BioMarker Pharmaceuticals Inc.' Hewlett` Packard Xerox Corporation Nordstrom Precision Castparts Sheraton Palace Hotel Silicon Graphics Genoa Restaurant; Oregon's #1 restaurant, Zagat Survey Howmet Corporation , Lee. Koehn.and,Associates Lane County Credit Association Joanne Bengtson - Resume.doc - Page 3 State Farm Insurance St. Cloud Small_ Business Association The Forum of Executive Women Versatron Community Organizations: District Attorney's Victim Assistance Program, Eugene, OR Diablo Peace Center Episcopal Church Human Rights Coalition Community Leaders Workshop, Eugene, OR New Community'Meeting; Eugene, OR 1 Oakland Buddhist Sanga Rape Crisis Centers, various communities Shelters for Domestic Violence Victims, various communities Stir Fry, Productions, Oakland, CA, Producers of the diversity film, "The Color of Fear" (a discussion among men from four different racial backgrounds talking about racism and diversity) The Peace Table, Napa, CA United Way Unitarian Church Unity Church Visticon Valley Community Beacon Youth Program Diversity: Hewlett Packard, Harassment, Discrimination, and Diversity training in conjunction with corporate attorneys Human Rights Coalition, Roseburg, OR Nordstrom, Nationwide Regional Diversity Managers. New Community. Meeting, Eugene OR, (bringing together fundamentalist Christians and Gay and Lesbian Activists) Oregon Multicultural Education. Association, (OMEA), Portland, 'OR Stir Fry Productions, Oakland, CA, Producers of the diversity film, "The Color of Fear" World Trust, Oakland, CA, Producers of the diversity film, "Coming Home." Education: Colleges and Universities: including training for: chancellors, vice chancelors, deans, department heads, administrative staff, :and students Stanford University University of California, San Francisco, Medical School University of California, Berkeley Miami University Clemson, University ° St. John's University ACT (American. Conservatory Theater) Joanne Bengtson Resume.doc Page 4 Babcock Business College, Wake Forest University Central Oregon, Community College ; Lane Community College Oregon State University Peralta Colleges San. Francisco City College St. Cloud State University University of Oregon California State University,-,Pomona, University of California, Riverside Wake Forest University K-12: including training for: regular classroom teachers, special education teachers, classroom assistants, speech therapists, counselors, principals, administrative staff, and students American High School Lane County School District 4-1 The Learning Center Federal Way Public Schools Head Start (Oregon, California, and Wisconsin) Milwaukee Public Schools Montessori Schools Catholic Schools , Palo Alto School District Springfield School District Berkeley Unified PTA Veneta School District Delta Junction Schools - Special Education: Douglas County, ESD Jackson County, ESD Pendleton ESD, San Mateo School District Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative Government: . The Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. The United States Justice Department Oregon State Personnel Management Association Indian Health Dental Management Oregon Employment and Training Council California Planning Roundtable Oregon Cascades West-Council of Governments'. Oregon-Washington Annual Postmasters'. Convention Oregon Correctional Institution City of Eugene, Eugene, OR. , Joanne Bengtson - Resume:doc Page 5 . Oakland Housing Authority, Oakland, CA Lincoln County Planning Department Oregon Employment and Training Leadership Association Oregon State Mayor's Association Mahlon Sweet Airport, security guards, Eugene,-.OR Oregon Democratic Party, Campaign Consultant., San Francisco County Jail Lane 'County Senior Services, Eugene, OR City of Gresham, OR Oregon Fish and Wildlife Finance: University of Oregon Business Continuation Center Lane County Credit Association Oregon Business Education Association Oregon Tax Association Babcock School of Management Gallagher.and Associates Tax Consultants St. Cloud Small Business Association Oregon School Business Officials Health Care: including workshops for: nurses, doctors, dentists, , hygienists, technicians, administrators, chaplains, psychologists, nutritionists, and educators. r Stanford University Hospital, Lucille Packard Children's, Hospital Carondelet Behavior Health Center Indian Health Services, nationwide McKenzie-Willamette Hospital Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital The Eugene Hospital and Clinic Satellite Health Care, inc. University of California Medical School Dentistry . 'Langley Porter Psychiatric`Institute Piediatric' Residents Pharmacy Law: The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Armrane Cohen, Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA Association of Legal Administrators, (ALA) Los Angeles, CA Centre for Dispute Resolution, London England, an organization of attorneys and mediators-an international leader in providing ADR (alternative dispute resolution) training. Edwina Dowell, Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA Joanne Bengtson - Resume.doc Page 6 National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees U.S. Department of Justice Law Enforcement: Lane County Juvenile Court Malone Sweet Airport Security Guards Oregon .Wildlife and Game Wardens Oregon Correctional Institute San Francisco City College Security Guards San Francisco City Jail Mediation: Centre for Dispute Resolution; London England, an organization -of attorneys and mediators-an international leader in providing ADR (alterna tive, dispute resolution) training Community Mediation Services, Eugene, OR Lane Community College, Peace Studies Program, Eugene, OR 'The Association for Dispute Resolution.of Northern California, Conference, Keynote Speaker, San Francisco State University, Peace Studies Program, San Francisco, CA Santa Clara County Dispute Resolution Program,.San Jose, CA University of California, San Francisco, Problem Resolution Center Work-Life Resource Center Staff , " Mediation Team Supportive Work Environment Campus Facilitators University of California; Berkeley, Peace Studies Program, Berkeley, CA Social Service .and Therapy: Private Continuing Education workshops for LCSW's and MFT's Asian and'Pacific Islanders for Reproductive Freedom, Oakland, CA Breast Cancer Action, San Francisco, CA Mental Health Resources and Education Network Benton County Children's Services Division, Corvallis OR Veneta School District and Palo Alto School District, parent training classes Coos County Juvenile Services Commission, Coos Bay, OR Family Centered Services'of Alaska The Child Center, Eugene OR, a school for emotionally disabled. children Lane County Children's Services Division, Eugene, OR Lane County Foster Care Association, Eugene, OR Good Samaritan Center Olive Plaza,-a retirement community, Eugene, OR, on meeting the emotional needs of elders Oregon Employment and Training (OETA), Statewide leadership Program for agency staff The Rape Crisis Center,•Oregon, Minnesota Women's Space, Oregon,"Minnesota Joanne Bengtson - Resume.doc Page 7 Oakland Housing Authority, Oakland, CA, staff training in handling angry or violent people , Women's Initiative, Oakland, CA University of California, San Francisco Medical School, Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute, speaker Agenda Item No. Sf ud y SeS5 i DO Meeting of $•0~3 •O S' ME'M.ORANDUM, TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Joe Barrett, Buyer RE: Draft Request for Proposal for Legal;Services DATE: August 12, 2005 The City's current contract for general legal services expires: on December 31 of this year and the City's agreement for labor attorney services also expires this year. In preparation for the City to advertise for proposals; Purchasing.has prepared a draft- Request for Proposal (RFP) for these services using a combined. approach. The City plans to solicit for both services in the same solicitation while reserving the right to hire either' one firm for both services or to award contracts to two different firms for each respective service. Staff" is requesting your input on the general legal services , Scope of Services which is -in the - attached draft of the RFP. A pull-out copy 'of.the Scope of Services for this section has also been attached for your convenience. Human Resources is working on the Scope of Services for labor attorney services. This item is on the agenda for the August 23, 2005 Study Session and staff will be requesting your input at that time.' With your. input, I will be working with Liz Newton on finalizing the RFP. It.is staff's intent to have the RFP sent out on September 1, 2005 and *to request all responses be submitted by September 26, 2005. Staff intends to bring the ranked responses to the Council at the Study Session on Octo e 2005 and schedule any presentations or interviews with the leading firms at the Co "cil"'s discretion. r If •y u'd like to discuss any'aspect:of.the RFP, please feel free.to contact me or Liz Newton with your 'ndividual questions. Thank you in advance for you input. C C CLnQ0 +0 ►O~a REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ATTORNEY SERVICES - GENERAL & LABOR SCOPE OF SERVICES - GENERAL SERVICES - A. GENERAL ATTORNEY SERVICES Awarded Counsel will be responsible for City legal representation as authorized . by. the City Council. Authorization to perform specific tasks will come. from the, Mayor,. City Council, City Manager or other persons directly authorized.-by the Mayor, City Council or the City Manager. - Awarded Counsel shall appoint an attorney to act as lead'. attorney. The, lead attorney could possibly be required to attend all City Council meetings depending on the content or actions taking place. In the event that the lead attorney is not available for a meeting, Awarded Counsel shall further . designate a backup lead attorney to attend the meetings. Legal Counsel will advise the City Manager with appropriate notice *if neither the lead attorney nor the backup lead attorney is available for a City Council meeting.. 1. Unless otherwise specified by the- Mayor, City Council, the Awarded Counsel` will be responsible for: a. Legal aspects of general administration of City, business, including.. preparing and providing legal opinions, assist with- establishment of correct procedures, drafting and reviewing ordinances, resolutions,; contracts, orders, . agreements, and other legal documents; and related tasks needed to' support City personnel, " Mayor, Council, and City Manager. b. Providing sound legal direction on all forms of City business, including, but not limited to, the following: 1) Real Property Transactions .2) . Public Financing 3) Land Use Law 4) Local Budget Law 5) Codification of Ordinances 6) Election Laws 7)' Open Meeting Laws 8) Public Record Laws 9) Public Contracting 10) Franchise Law (i.e. Solid Waste) 11) Annekation Law 12) Public/Private Partnerships 13) Oregon Revised- Statutes 14) Public Meeting Law 15) General.Business Laws C. Training of-nonlegal personnel in the performance of legally related tasks in order to reduce legal expenses. d.. Regular attendance at City Council meetings and attendance at other municipal meetings on request. r e. Represent the City during litigation or. Municipal Court prosecution. E Review City Council packets and provide advice prior to meetings. Review Planning Commission packets when requested and provide timely advice prior to .meetings. g. Notify City' of changes in state and federal laws that require changes in city codes, ordinances, regulations or policy. Work with city staff to provide appropriate amendments to city' codes, ordinance; regulations or policies to remain in compliance with applicable laws. 2. Legal activities such as complex litigation and special project assignments which fall outside of the above categories, and which would include costs exceeding the projections of the City's budget for legal services, must be authorized, by the City Council. Awarded Counsel and the City Manager will regularly review the level of expenditures on legal services and will: prioritize projects in order-to stay within the budgeted amounts. 3.- The Awarded Counsel: will coordinate with. the City. Manager and department heads, but within the chain of command shall report 'directly,to- the City Council. In this regard, in the event a conflict develops between, - the Council and City Manager, the Awarded Counsel will represent the Council but will notify the. City Manager at first knowledge of a conflict.. 4. The City reserves 'the right in' appropriate situations 'to retain separate outside counsel. It is recognized that the City presently utilizes other law firms to provide representation in personnel issues, labor relations, and water-related matters (i.e., water rights, water supply). t Date: August 9, 2005 CITY OF, TIGARD, OREGON REQUEST O. PROPOSAL Attorney Services.- General & Labor DATE DUE: (Month - Day - Year) TIME DUE: 2:00 PM Envelope(s) shall be sealed and'marked with Project Title. Respondents must submit one (1) original and three (3) complete copies of their RFP response: Direct RFP Questions To: Joe Barrett, Buyer City of Tigard, Finance Phone: 503-639-4171, Ext. 2477 'Fax: (503) 639=1471 Email:'] oseph(a,ci.tigard.or.us SUBMIT PROPOSAL TO: Joe Barrett, Buyer City'of Tigard - Information Desk 13125 SW'Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 2005.RFP - General &'Labor Attorney T age 1 of 29 t PUBLIC NOTICE Request for Proposal Attorney Services - General & Labor The City of Tigard is currently,, seeking proposals ftom attorney firms qualified to provide general and/or ,.labor attorney services to the City: Firms are invited to submit a proposal outlining their experience and qualifications in performing. work directly related to the services required as detailed in the Request for Proposal packet. Sealed proposals will be received until (Month - Day - Year -.00:00 AM/PM)., to the attention of Joe Barrett, Buyer, at the Tigard City Hall Information Desk located at 13125 SW Hall, Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. There will be, no formal opening of the 'proposals. , Facsimile and electronic proposals will not be accepted. Proposals will not be accepted after the stated opening date and time. Late proposals will'be returned to the vendor unopened. Proposal packets may be downloaded from www.ci.tigard.or.us or may be obtained at the Tigard City Hall Information Desk at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 'Joe Barrett, Buyer at (503).71'8-2477.'- Proposers. are required, to certify non-discrimination. in employment practices, and:.'identify resident status as defined in ORS .279.029. Pre-qualification of proposer is not required." All proposers. are required to. comply With the 'provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes and Local n Contract Review Board (LCRB) Policy. The City of Tigard reserves the right to: 1. Reject any or all proposal not in compliance with public bidding procedures; 2•. Postpone award of the contract for aperiod not to exceed sixty (60).days from date of proposal opening; 3. Waive informalities in the proposals; and 4. Select the proposal which appears to be in the best interest of the City. PUBLISHED: Daily Journal of Commerce DATE: (Month Day -Year) 2005 R.FP- General & LaborAttorney Page 2 of 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS " TITLE. PAGE Title Page I Public Notice 2 Table of Contents 3 Sections SECTION 1 Introduction 4 SECTION 2 Proposer's Special Instructions 4 ' SECTION 3 Background 7 ;SECTION 4 Scope of Services 7 SECTION 5 Proposal Content and Format 10 SECTION 6 Proposal Evaluation Procedures 12 SECTION 7' Proposal Certification 15 SECTION 8 Signature Page 16 Attachments ATTACHMENT A Acknowledgement of Addendum : 17 ATTACHMENT B Statement of Proposal r . 1.8 ATTACHMENT C City of Tigard Attorney Services Agreement 19 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney Page 3 of 29 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard.is seeking proposals from attorney.firms qualified to provide general and/or labor attorney services'.to 'the City. Firms are invited to submit a proposal outlining their experience and qualifications in performing work directly related to' the services required as detailed in the Request for Proposal packet. SECTION 2 PROPOSER'S SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS A. PROPOSED TIMELINES (Day of Week, Month - Day : Year) Advertisement and Release of Proposals (Time, Day of Week; Month _ Day:- Year) Deadline for Submission of Proposals (Month - Day - Year) Interviews (if necessary) (Month - Day - Year) Local Contract Review Board Award (Month - Day - Year) Commencement of Services NOTE: The City reserves the 'right to modify' this schedule at the City's discretion. Proper notification of changes in the will be made to all interested parties.. B. GENERAL ti By submitting a proposal, the Proposer certifies that the -Proposal has been arrived at, ' independently and has been submitted without any collusion designed to limit competition. C. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL The Proposal.-and all amendments must be signed and submitted no, later than (Month - Day - Year - 00:00 AM/PM), to the address below. Each proposal must be submitted in a sealed envelope and designated -with, proposal title. To assure that your proposal receives priority treatment, please mark as follows. -Attorney Services - General &•Labor (Due Month- Day - Year)-2:00 PM City of Tigard - City Hall Information Desk Joe Barrett, Buyer 13125 SW Hall,Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Proposer shall put their name and. address on the outside of the envelope. ' It is the Proposer's responsibility to ensure that proposals. are received prior to the stated closing time. The City shall not be responsible for the proper identification and handling of any proposals submitted incorrectly. Late proposals, late.modification or late withdrawals shall not be 'considered accepted.after the stated bid' opening date and time and shall be returned unopened. Facsimile and electronic (email) proposals will not be accepted. . 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney Page 4 of 29 D. PROTEST OF SCOPE OF WORK OR TERMS A proposer who believes any details in the scope, of work or terms detailed in the proposal packet and.sample contract are unnecessarily restrictive or limit competition may submit a protest in writing, to the Purchasing' Office. A protest may be submitted via facsimile. Any such protest shall include the reasons for the protest and shall detail any proposed changes to the scope of work or ' terms: The Purchasing Office shall respond. 'to any protest and, if 'necessary, shall 'issue , any appropriate revisions, substitutions, or clarification via addenda to all interested Proposers. To be considered, protests must be received'at least.five- (5) days before the proposal closing date. The City shall.not consider any protest against award due to the content of proposal scope of work or contract terms submitted after the established protest deadline. All protests should be directed to Joe Barrett; Buyer and be marked as follows: RFP Snecification/Term.Protest RFP Name and Closing Date City.of Tigard Joe Barrett, Buyer 13125;SW Hall Blvd; Tigard; Oregon, 97223 If a protest is received in accordance with section above, the proposal opening date may be extended if necessary to allow consideration of the protest and issuance of any necessary addenda to the proposal documents. E. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND SIGNING All requested -forms and attachments (Signature Page; Acknowledgment Addendum, Statement of Proposal, etc.) must be submitted with the Proposal and in the required format. The submission and signing of a proposal shall indicate the intention of the firm to adhere to the provisions described in this RFP. F. COST OF PREPARING A PROPOSAL The RFP does not commit the City to paying any costs incurred by. Proposer;, in-the submission. or presentation. of a proposal; or in making the necessary studies for the preparation thereof. G. INTERPRETATIONS. AND ADDENDA All questions regarding this project proposal shall be directed to Joe' Barrett; Buyer. If .necessary, interpretations or clarifications in response. to such questions will be made by issuance of an "Addendum"' to all prospective Proposers within a reasonable time prior to proposal closing, :but in 'no case less than. 72 hours before the proposal closing.. If an addendum is necessary after that'time, the ;City; at its discretion, can extend the closing date: Any Addendum issued, as a. result of any change in the RFP, must be acknowledged by submitting the "Acknowledgment•of Addendum" with proposal. Only questions answered 2005 RFP =General & Labor Attorney Page 5 of 29 by formal written addenda will be binding. Oral and other interpretations or clarifications will be without legal effect. H. BUSINESS TAX/FEDERAL TAX ID REQUIRED The City of Tigard Business Tax is required. Chapter 5.4 of the Tigard Municipal Code states any business doing business in the City of Tigard 'shall pay a City of Tigard Business Tax. No contracts shall be signed prior to the obtaining. of the City of Tigard Business Tax. Upon award of proposal,* contractor shall complete 'a .W-9 form for the City. 1. CONTRACT.ADMINISTRATOR The Contract Administrator will be Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, who can be reached by phone at (503) 639-4171, ext. 2414 or by email at liz(a_)ci.tigard.or.us. J. PROPOSAL VALIDITY PERIOD Each proposal shall, be irrevocable for a period of sixty (60) days from the Proposal Opening Date. K. FORM OF CONTRACT A. copy of the City's standard attorney services agreement, which the City expects. the successful firm. or individual to execute, is included as "Attachment C.'.". The, contract will incorporate the terms and, conditions from this RFP document and the successful proposer's response documents. Firms taking exception to any of the contract terms shall submit a protest or request for change in accordance with Section-.2(D) "Protest of Scope of Work or Terms" or their. exceptions will be deemed waived.. L. TERM OF CONTRACT . The term of the contract shall be dpe'riod of two (2).years with the option to renew for ahree (3) additional. one (1) year periods. The total term of the contract cannot exceed five (5)'.years. M. TERMINATION The contract may be terminated by,mutual consent of both. parties or by the City at its discretion with a 30.days' written notice. If the agreement is so terminated, Contractor shall be paid in accordance with the terms of.the agreement. N. NON-COLLUSION Proposer- certifies that this proposal had.been arrived 'at independently and has been submitted without .collusion designed to limit independent bidding or competition. 0. PUBLIC RECORD All bid material submitted-.by bidder shall become the property. of the City and is public record unless otherwise specified. A bid that contains any information that is considered trade secret under ORS 192.501(2) should be segregated and. clearly identified as such. This information will be kept confidential and shall not be disclosed'except in accordance 2005 RFP -General & Labor Attorney Page 6 of 29 with the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192: The above restrictions may not include cost or price information, which must be open to the public. SECTION.3. BACKGROUND Tigard was incorporated in 1961 and today, is a friendly, livable and affordable community located just minutes southwest of Portland in Washington County. The 11 th largest city in the State of Oregon, approximately .45,500 residents make their home -in this centrally located'. community in Washington County, LO miles southwest, of downtown Portland, just minutes from .I-5, Highway .217 and Highway, 99W: The City is governed by a City Council with -the City Manager responsible for the daily administration of all City functions. This includes general management,, personnel administration,, labor relations, ' risk and informational technology, volunteer coordination, and community relations. As a community, Tigard strives to manage this . growth and blend the amenities of a modern city with the friendliness and community spirit of a small town. The City's "open door" policy encourages citizens..to attend weekly city council meetings and observe the four-member council' and mayor make important decisions. Tigard is .a community building for today and its future. Local government and. school leaders, citizen groups, businesses and individuals work hard to build upon Tigard's significant community attributes. The 'City promotes citizen participation through Citizen. Involvement Teams that represent the community's four geographic areas. The teams' allow citizens to become part of the decision- making process. The City is currently seeking to retain the services of one or more firms to provide both ,general attorney services and labor attorney services. The City is reserving the right to offer'both services to one firm or offer general counsel services to one firm and labor 'counsel services separately to another firm... The firm or firms that `are awarded a contract under this RFP will work closely with City staff, Mayor, and City 'Councilors, on various. City issues including, but not limited to: providing legal aspects of 'general administration of City business, including preparing and providing legal.' opinions, assist with establishment. of correct procedures, drafting and reviewing ordinances, resolutions,. contracts, orders, agreements, and other legal documents; provide . necessary., collective bargaining assistance to the City as needed; and any other aspects of legal needs as detailed in this RFP'packet. SECTION 4 SCOPE OF SERVICES ' Tigard is seeking both general attorney services and labor attorney services. The City is soliciting these services together while reserving the, right to either award both services to one firm or to two different firms. Firms submitting proposals may submit on both 'services or on each individual service. There will be no preference given by the City with regards to which service, or combination of services, for which a firm submitsa proposal. response. Firms will be scored individually, for - both services if submitting the combination option.' The Scope of Services for each requested service is as follows: 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney Page 7 of 29 A. GENERAL:ATTORNEY SERVICES Awarded Counsel will be responsible.for City legal representation as authorized by the City Council. Authorization to perform specific-.tasks will come. from the Mayor, City Council,. City Manager or other persons directly authorized by.the Mayor,, City Council or the City Manager.- Awarded Counsel shall appoint an attorney to act as lead attorney. The 'lead attorney could possibly -be required to attend all City' Council meetings depending on the content or actions taking place. In the event that the lead attorney is not available for a meeting,. Awarded Counsel shall further .designate a backup lead attorney to attend the meetings. Legal Counsel will advise the City Manager with appropriate notice if neither the . lead attorney nor the backup lead attorney is available for a City Council meeting. 1.' 'Unless otherwise specified by the Mayor, City Council; the Awarded Counsel will be responsible for: a. Legal aspects of general administration of City business, including preparing and providing legal opinions, assist with establishment of correct procedures, drafting and reviewing ordinances, resolutions, contracts, orders, agreements, '.and other legal documents, and related tasks needed to support City personnel, Mayor, Council, and City Manager... b. Providing sound legal direction on all forms of City business, including, but not limited to, the following:. 1) Real Property Transactions 2) Public Financing 3) Land, Use Law. 4) Local Budget Law. 5) Codification of Ordinances 6) Election Laws 7) Open.Meeting Laws 8) Public-Record Laws ; 9) 'Public Contracting 10) Franchise Law (i.e. Solid Waste) 11) Annexation Law 12) Public/Private. Partnerships . 13). Oregon Revised Statutes, 14) Public Meeting Law 15) General Business Laws . C. Training of nonlegal personnel in~ the -performance of legally related tasks in order to reduce legal expenses. d. Regular. attendance at _ City Council meetings and attendance at other municipal meetings on request.. e. Represent the City during litigation or Municipal Court prosecution. f: Review City Council packets and provide advice prior to meetings. Review Planning Commission packets when requested and provide timely advice prior to meetings. 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney Page 8 of 29 g. Notify City of changes :in, state and federal laws that, require changes in city codes, ordinances, regulations or policy. Work with city staff to provide appropriate amendments to city codes, ordinance, regulations or policies to remain in compliance with applicable laws. 2. Legal activities, such'as complex litigation and special project assignments which ,fall outside of the above categories, and which would include costs exceeding the projections of the City's budget for legal services, must be authorized by the City Council.- Awarded .Counsel and the City Manager will regularly review the level of expenditures' on. legal services and will prioritize projects in order to stay within the,budgeted amounts. 3. The • Awarded Counsel, will coordinate, with the City Manager and department heads, but within the chain of command shall report directly to the City Council. In this' regard, in the' event a conflict develops between the Council and City Manager, the Awarded Counsel will represent the Council but will notify-the City Manager at first knowledge of a conflict. 4: The City reserves the ~riglit in appropriate situations to retain separate 'outside counsel. It is recognized that the City.presently utilizes other law firms to provide • representation in personnel issues, labor relations, and water-related matter's: (i•.e., water rights, water supply.). . B.. LABOR ATTORNEY SERVICES'. .Awarded' Counsel stall provide employment and labor relations and personnel related , attorney.services as required by'the City.', Services shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: 1. Contract negotiations for the following City collective bargaining units: • • SEIU OPEU Local, 503 + TPOA - Police Officers 2. Consulting service, including representation at appropriate meetings/hearings, regarding contract interpretation and administration; mediation, fact-finding and arbitration, dispute resolution;' assistance in the selection of arbitrators; unfair labor practices; staff and/or Council, strategy planning . and progress, meetings; representation, unit clarification and de-authorization matters; impact bargaining; communication and. correspondence. activities between the City • and officials of the aforementioned bargaining units; and other employment related services as required. 3. Staff members 'of bargaining teams' will provide necessary assistance to the Firm including, but. not limited to, information, regarding operational procedures, department/division responsibilities . and goals, necessary contract alteration, costing information, membership profile data, benefit and salary data, and other assistance deemed appropriate to an-effective bargaining process., 2005 RFP = General'& Labor Attorney Page 9 of 29 4. Awarded Counsel shall work directly with the Human Resources Department in the performance of all contractual duties.' SECTION 5 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND FORMAT A. FORMAT To provide a degree of consistency in review of the written proposals, firms are requested to prepare their proposals in' the standard format specified below. 1. Title Page " Proposer. should identify the RFP subject,, name and title of contact person, address,.telephone number, fax.number, email address and date of submission. 2. Transmittal Letter The transmittal letter. should be not more than two (2) pages long and should' include as a minimum the following: , a. Abrief statement of the Proposer's understanding of the project and services to be performed, , b. A positive commitment to perform the services within the time,' period specified, starting and completing the project within the deadlines stated in this RFP; and the names of persons authorized to represent the Proposer, their-title, address and telephone number (if different from the individual who signs the.. transmittal letter). .3. Table of Contents ' The table of contents should include a clear and complete identification by section and page number of the materials submitted'. ` 4. Firm Qualifications & Experience a. Background. of the firm. Provide a detailed description of the law firm, including historical background, number and location. of firm offices, number of attorneys, and major areas of practice. b. Qualifications of the firm in performing this type of work. This should include examples of relatedexperience and references for similar studies and projects. Firms'should detail experience in, but not limited to, the following: 1) Real Property Transactions . 2) Public Financing 3), • Land Use Law 4) Local Budget Law 5) Codification of Ordinances 6) Election Laws 7) Open Meeting Laws 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney Page 10 of 29 8) 'Public Record Laws 9) Public Contracting 10), Franchise. Law, (i.e.. Solid Waste) 1'1) . Annexation Law .12) Public/Private Partnerships 13) Oregon Revised Statutes 14) Public'Meeting Law ' 15) General Business Laws 5..- Team Member Qualifications & Experience Project team and the team member's- individual qualifications. Provide details in regards to thearea or areas of practice in which each Team.•1Vlember is qualified and the jurisdictions` in which they practice. and are licensed. Provide a detailed resume and biographical sketch describing the education, and, relevant experience of each Team Member. 6. Proiect Approach a. Submit 'a work -plan to accomplish the. scope of work defined in the section entitled "Scope and Schedule : of Work" in this RFP. The work plan should include time estimates. (in, hours) for each- significant segment of the project and the staff level to be assigned. Where possible, individual. staff members should be named and their titles provided. The planned use of specialists (if any) should.be described. b.' Indicate the, extent to which City personnel would. be expected to contribute to.the project work effort. 7. Compensation Proposers shall detail the hourly rates to be charged for partners, senior associates, associates, paralegals, legal assistants, clerical; and any other support staff. In addition, any potential additional cost, i.e. travel,,per diem, etc., must be detailed in the proposal response. 8. Presentation/Interview This will provide an opportunity to clarify or elaborate, on.the firm's proposal, but will not, in anyway provide an opportunity to change any fee amount originally' proposed. The City.'will schedule the time and location of these presentations and notify the selected firms. Note: It is likely that not all firms submitting a response will be selected for the presentation/interview phase. B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Provide a brief description of any other services that your firm could provide the City and, an approximation of the hourly charge for each service of this type. Such services would,. be; contracted for on an "as needed" basis, to be.provided and billed. for separately. C. ADDITIONAL 'INFORMATION Please provide any other information you feel would help the Selection Committee evaluate your firm for this project. 2005 RFP - General.&tabor Attorney Page `I 1 of"29, D. REFERENCES Please list three (3) references as follows: Company Contact. Person Title Phone Email E. DISPUTES Should any doubt or difference of opinion arise between.the City and a Proposer as'to the items to`be'fumished-hereunder_or the interpretation of the: provisions. of this RFP, the . decision of the.City shall be final and binding upon all-parties. F. CITY PERSONNEL No Officer,. agent, consultant or employee. of the City shall be permitted any interest in the contract. SECTION 6 PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES A. SELECTION AND EVALUATION PROCESS A Selection Committee assembled by the City will review the written proposals. Proposals will be evaluated to determine vlhich'ones best meet the needs. of`he,City. After meeting the mandatory requirements, the proposals will be evaluated on both their technical and fee'aspects. The City is seeking both general attorney services and labor attorney services. The City is soliciting these services together while reserving the. right to either award both services to one firm or to two different firms. Firms submitting proposals. may submit on both, services or on each individual service. There'will be no preference given by the City . with regards to which service, or combination of services, for which a firm submits a proposal response. Firms will be, scored individually for both services if submitting the combination. option. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the following: 1. ` Completed Proposal.submitted on time Pass/Fail 2. An original plus three (3) copies of the complete proposal Pass/Fail 3. Transmittal letter Pass/Fail 4. Firm qualifications & experience .50 points The evaluation. of the firm's qualif cations 'as listed under Section 5. of this -RFP Packet. .5. Proiect Team member gualifications_& experience 35 'points The' evaluation of • the project team members' qualifications based upon the information: listed in the statement of team member qualifications detailed in' Section 5. - 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney Page 12 of 29 6.. Proiect understanding and approach 50 points An evaluation of -the proposer's work plan 'and general understanding of the project as detailed. in Section, 5. 7. Compensation 40 points The evaluation of the proposed compensation structure will consider the overall cost (fees plus out-' of-pocket expenses), and the proposed. hours and City assistance requested. All of these factors are important in evaluating the reasonableness of the fee . and the' , Proposer's.' , understanding of, : the requirements. 8. PresentationAnterview 25 points An evaluation of. the proposer's." presentation/interview as detailed in Section 5.' Note': It is.likely that not all firms submitting a response will be selected for the presentation/interview phase. Total Evaluation Points 200, points B.. INVESTIGATION OF REFERENCES The City reserves the right to investigate references and the past performance of any proposer with respect to its successful performance of similar projects, compliance with. specifications and contractual obligations, its completion or delivery of a project on schedule and its lawful payment of employees and workers. C. CLARIFICATION OF PROPOSALS The City reserves the right to obtain clarification of any point in a. firm's proposal, or to ` obtain additional information necessary, to properly evaluate or particular proposal. Failure of a Proposer, to respond to such a request for additional information or clarification could resulf.in rejection of the firm's proposal. D. RESERVATION IN-EVALUATION The Selection Committee reserves the right to either: (a) request "Best ,and Final- Offers from the two finalist firms and award to the lowest priced or (b) to.reassess the proposals and award to the vendor determined to best meet the overall needs of the City. E. INTENT OF AWARD Upon review of the proposals submitted, the City may negotiate a scope of work and an attorney services agreement with one or more firms, or may select one or more firms for further consideration. F. PROTEST OF AWARD In accordance.. with the City's Model Public Contracting Rule 30.104, any adversely affected Proposer has fourteen (14) calendar.days from the date of the written-notice of award to file a written protest., 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney Page 13 of 29 G. PROPOSAL REJECTION The City reserves the right to: 1. Reject any or all proposals not in compliance with all public procedures and requirements; . . 2. Reject any proposal not meeting the specifications set forth herein; 3. Waive any or all irregularities in-proposals submitted; 4. In the event two or more proposals shall be for the same amount for the same _,work, the City shall follow the provisions of LCRB 30.095 and Section 137-095 of the Oregon Attorney General's Model Public Contract Manual; 5. ' Reject all proposals; 6. Award any or all parts of any proposal; and 7. Request references and other data to determine responsiveness. 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney Page 14 of 29 SECTION 7 1 PROPOSAL CERTIFICATIONS : Non-discrimination Clause The Contractor agrees not to discriminate against any client, employee or applicant for employment or for services,. because of race, color; religion, sex, national origin, handicap or age with regard .to; but not limited to, the following: employment upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoffs or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; selection for training; rendition of.. services. It is further understood. that any, contractor who is in violation of this clause shall be barred from receiving awards of. any purchase order from the City, unless a satisfactory showing is made that discriminatory practices have terminated and that a recurrence of such acts is unlikely. Agreed by: Firm Name: Address: Resident. Certificate Please Check One: ❑ Resident Vendor: Vendor-has paid unemployment,taxes and income taxes in this state during, the .last twelve calendar months immediately preceding the submission of. this proposal. Or ❑ Non-resident Vendor.: Vendor does not qualify under requirement stated above. (Please specify your state of residence:. ) Officer's. signature: Type or print officer's name`. .2005 RFP; - General & Labor Attorney Page 15 of 29 SECTION 8 SIGNATURE PAGE J The undersigned proposes to perform all work as listed in the Specification section,. for the price(s) stated; and that- all articles supplied under any resultant. contract will conform to the specifications herein, The undersigned agrees to be bound by all applicable laws 'and regulations, the accompanying specifications,arid by.City policies and regulations. The undersigned, by.submitting'a proposal, represents that:, A) The Proposer has read and understands the specifications. . B) Failure to comply with the specifications or any terms of the Request for Proposal may disqualify the Proposer as being non-responsive. The undersigned certifies that the proposal has been arrived at independently and' has been submitted without any collusion designed to.limit competition. The undersigned certifies that all addenda to the' specifications has been received. and, duly considered and that all costs associated with, all addenda have been included in this proposal:' 1 Addenda: No.'. through No. inclusive. We therefore offer and make this proposal to furnish, services at the price(s) indicated herein in' fulfillment of the attached requirements and specifications of the- City. Name of firm: Address: Telephone Number: Fax Number:* . By: Date: (Signature ofAuthorized OfciaL Ifpartnership, signature of one partner.)' Typed Name/Title:.. If corporation, attest: ' (Corporate officer) ❑ Corporation ❑ Partnership LJ Individual Federal Tax.Identification Number (TIN): 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney Page 16 of 29 ACI~MEI`'1TF ADDEND 8 TT Cj A GNIENT AC ~wLED Tigard Oregon City for Proposal ~est` & Labor . RSeryices _ Generay _ aa PM - Attorney Month. 1) ee Close: (Day"°f ~rk)~ . ' . ~ LOwI~ ADDENp,~~ • RE'~ENED THE FOL . , . I/WE IIAV «None Received' ved write none recei I 3. Date of proposer Signature Title Corporate Same Page l~ of 29 Attorney Labor ATTACHMENT B STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL Name of Consultant: Mailing Address: r Contact Pers`on:. Telephone: .Fax: Email: accepts all the terms and conditions contained in ,the 'City of Tigard Request for Proposal for Attorney Services" General. & '.Labor and the attached agreement for attorney services (Attachment C): Signature.of authorized representative ;Date Type or print name of authorized representative, Telephone Number Type or'print name of person(s). authorized to negotiate contracts Telephone Number REFERENCES Reference 41 Telephone Number Project Title Contact Individual Reference 42 Telephone Number Project, Title' Contact Individual Reference 43 Telephone-Number Project Title Contact Individual " 2005 UP .'..General & Labor Attorney Page 18 of 29 • C ATTACHMENT;,C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ATTORNEY SERVICES CONTRACT This agreement made and entered into this (Day) day of•(Month),. (Year) by and between the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called City, and (Awarded Firm) hereinafter called Legal Counsel. WITNESSETH. WHEREAS, City. has need ' for the services of an' attorney firm with the, particular training,, ability, knowledge,, and experience possessed by Legal Counsel; and WHEREAS, City has determined that (Awarded Firm) is qualified and capable of performing the` professional services as City does hereinafter require under those terms and conditions set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants 'contained herein, the 'parties agree as.follows: 1. LEGAL. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. Legal Counsel agrees to 'complete work, which is detailed in. Exhibit "A" and"'by this reference made apart hereof. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION This Agreement. shall become effective beginning (Effective Date), and shall expire, unless otherwise terminated, or ;extended, on'(Expiration Date - 2 Years from Effective Date). This ,agreement may be extended.ai the agreement of both parties,for three (3) additional one (1) year terms.; In'accordance with the ,City's Public Contracting Rules the' total duration of this agreement may not exceed five (5) years. 3. COMPENSATION A. City agrees to pay Legal Counsel in accordance, with this section for performance of services described herein. Payment shall be based upon A 'detailed monthly billing showing work performed.and identifying, specific legal matters worked'- on. B. Hourly Rates The hourly rates shall be as follows: Partners Sr..Associates Associates Paralegals Legal Assistants Clerical . 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney Page 19 of 29 The.parties may by mutual agreement adjust these rates each contract year. Legal ! Counsel shall submit *any proposed new rate structure in: writing to the City for its' review. not less than 60 days prior to the view contract year. C. The direct cost for ,such items as`.long distance charges, messenger, services, printing, mileage, copy charges ((cents) cents per page) and the like will be billed to'City, with no markup or overhead. charge added, except that mileage charges for-trips between Legal Counsel's office and City office's shall not be charged to the City: D. Payment by, City shall 'release City `from any 'further 'obligation for payment to Legal Counsel, for services -performed or expenses incurred as of the' date of the statement of,services : Payment shall not be considered acceptance or approval of any work or waiver of any defects therein. . E.. Payment-will be made, in installments based on Legal Counsel's invoice, subject J' to the approval of the City Manager or designee.. Payment shall -be made only for work actually completed as of the date of the invoice. F. , The. City certifies that sufficient funds are available and , authorized for expenditure "to finance costs of this contract. . 1 4. OWNERSHIP OF-WORK PRODUCT*: to, City'shall be the owner of and shall ,be entitled ' possession of any and all work products of Legal Counsel which result from this Agreement, including any computations, plans,' correspondence or, pertinent data and in, by or computed by Legal.. Counsel prior to termination of•this Agreement by Legal Counsel or.upon 'completion of the work pursuant to `this Agreement. - ' .5.. . ASSIGNMENUDELEGATION Neither. party shall assign, sublet or transfer any, interest in or duty under-this Agreement without the written consentof . the other and not. assignment shall be of any force or effect " whatsoever unless and,. until the other party has so consented. If City. agrees to assignment of tasks to, a subcontractor; Legal Counsel shall be hilly responsible. for the acts or omissions of any subcontractors and of all persons employed by them, and neither the.approval by City of any subcontractor nor, anything contained herein shall be deemed to create any contractual relation between the subcontractor and City. 6. STATUS .OF: LEGAL COUNSEL AS.INDEPENDENT. CONTRACTOR. Legal Counsel certifies that: A., Legal Counsel acknowledges that for all purposes • related to this Agreement, . Legal Counsel .is and shall be deemed. to be an independent contractor as "defined . by ORS 670:700 ,and'. not an employee of. City; shall not be entitled to benefits of any kind to Which an employee of City is entitled and shall be solely responsible for. all payments and taxes required by law... Furthermore, in the event .that Legal 2005 RRP General Labor Attorney Page 20 of 29 Counsel,'is found by a court of. law or any, administrative agency. to. be an employee of City for any purpose, City shall. be entitled to - offset compensation due,. or to demand repayment of any amounts paid to•.Legal Counsel under.the ' terms of this- Agreement, to the. full extent of any benefits or, other :remuneration 'LA as Counsel.receives (from Cityo'rthird.party) ' a result of said finding and to the full extent of any.payme'nts that City is required or make (to. Legal Counselor to a third party) as a result of said finding- 11. : The undersigned Legal. Counsel hereby represents that no employee of the'City, or any partnership, or corporation in which a City employee has an interest, has or will receive any remuneration of any description from . Legal Counsel, either directly, or indirectly, in connection, with the letting or, performance of this Agreement, except' as specifically declared in writing. C. Legal Counsel'certifies that it currently'has -a City business, license or will obtain ' • , one, prior to delivering services under this Agreement. D.i Legal Counsel'is, not an officer; employee, or agent.of the City-as those,terms are used in ORS, 30.265: 7. INDEMNIFICATION, f . City has relied upon the professional ,ability and training of Legal 'Counsel as a material inducement to enter into_this Agreement. Legal Counsel warrants that:all.its work will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and' standards as well as the requirements of applicable federal, state and local laws it being understood that acceptance of Legal Counsel's work by-City.-shall not operate as a waiver or release. indemnify and defend the 'City, its officers; 'agents and Legal Counsel. agrees to,, employees.and hold them harmless from any and all liability, causes of action, claims, losses, damages,-.judgments or other-'costs or expenses including attorney's fees and witness costs and'(at both trial and, appeal level, whether or not a trial or appeal ever takes, i place) that may be asserted+.by any person or entity which in any way arise from, during or in. connection with, the . performance of the work described in this contract, except liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City and its employees. Such :indemnification shall also.'cover claims brought against the City under state or federal worker's- compensation laws. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever; such illegality. or invalidity:, shall not affect the ' validity of the remainder of this indemnification. 8. INSURANCE ; A. Legal'Counsel, and its subcontractors; shall maintain insurance acceptable to City in'full force and effect throughout the term of this.contract.. Such .insurance, shall : cover all risks -arising directly or indirectly 'out' of Legal Counsel's activities or work hereunder, including the operations of its. subcontractors of any tier.' 2005 RFP'-General & Labor Attorney Page 21 of 29 B. The policy or policies of insurance maintained by, Legal Counsel and its subcontractors shall provide at least the~following limits, and coverages: 1. Commercial General Liability Insurance Legal Counsel shall obtain, at Legal Counsel's expense, and keep in effect during the term of this contract, Comprehensive General . Liability insurance covering Bodily Injury and Property Damage on an "occurrence" form (1996 ISO or equivalent). This•coverage shall include Contractual. Liability insurance. for the indemnity provided under this contract.,. The'followinglinsurance will be carried: Coverage Limit General Aggregate $2,000,000 Products=Completed Operations Aggregate $1,000,000 Each Occurrence $1,000,000 Personal & Advertising Injury $1,000,000 Fire Damage (Any one fire) $50,000 . Medical Expense (Any one person) $5,000 r 2. Legal Errors & Omissions/Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance.. Legal Counsel shall obtain;. at Legal Counsel's expense, and keep inf effect during -the term of this contract, Professional Liability Insurance covering any damages caused by an. error, omission or any negligent acts. This coverage shall include Annual Aggregate 8c Per. Occurrence limits of $2,000,000 per attorney. 3.. Commercial Automobile. Insurance Legal Counsel shall obtain, at'Legal Counsel"s expense, and. keep in effect during the term 'of this contract, Commercial Automobile Liability coverage including coverage ' for , all owned, hired, and non-owned vehicles.. The .Combined Single Limit per occurrence shall not be less than $1,000,000. 4. Workers' Compensation Insurance Legal Counsel its subcontractors, if any, and all employers providing work, labor or materials under this contract are subject employers under the.Oregon Workers' Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide workers' compensation coverage that satisfies Oregon law for all their subject workers. Legal Counsel or subcontractors who perform work without the assistance or labor of any. employee. need not obtain such coverage. This shall include Employer's Liability Insurance with coverage. limits of not less than . $100,000 each accident. 2005 RFP -General & Labor Attorney Page 22 of 29 ' 5.'. Additional Insured Provision The-Commercial General Liability Insurance and Commercial Automobile Insurance. policies and other policies the City :deems necessary shall include . the City, its officers, directors, and employees as additional insureds with respect to this'contract. 6. Extended. Reporting Coverage If any liability insurance required'by'this contract is arranged on a "claims made" basis, Extended Reporting coverage will 'be required at the completion of this contract to a duration of,24;.months or the maximum time period the Legal Counsel's insurer will provide if less than 24 months. Legal Counsel,will be responsible for furnishing certification of Extended Reporting coverage for 24• : months --following contract completion. Continuous "claims made" coverage will be acceptable in lieu of Extended Reporting coverage, provided its retroactive date is 'on or before the effective date of this contract. .7: Notice of Cancellation There shall be-no cancellations material change, exhaustion of :aggregate limits or intent not to renew insurance coverage without 30 'days' written notice to the City. Any failure to comply with- this' provision will not affect the insurance coverage provided to the City. A 30 days' notice of cancellation provision shall be physically endorsed on the policy. 8. Insurance Carrier Rating Coverages. provided by the Legal Counsel must be underwritten by an insurance ;company deemed acceptable by the City.'. The City reserves the right to reject all or'any insurance carrier(s) with an unacceptable financial rating.. 9. Certificates of Insurance As evidence of the insurance coverage required by this contract, the Legal Counsel shall, furnish Certificates of Insurance to the City.. No contract shall be effected until the requiredcertificates have been received and approved by 'the City. The certificate, will specify and document all provisions within this contract. A renewal certificate will be sent to the address'listed in this section 10 days prior to coverage expiration. 10. Primary Coverage Clarification a The parties agree that Legal Counsel's coverage shall. be primary to the extent permitted by law.' The parties further agree that, they consider _ insurance maintained by the City as excess and not contributory insurance as to the insurance required in thissection. 11. Cross.Liability Clause 2005 RFP General & Labor Attorney Page 23 of 29 A cross-liability clause or-separation of insureds clause will be included in all general liability and professional- liability policies required by this contract. 'Legal Counsel's insurance policy shall contain provision that such policies shall not be canceled or their limits of liability reduced without 30 days prior notice to City., A'copy of each insurance policy, certified as a true copy by'an authorized representative of the issuing insurance company, or at the discretion of City, in lieu thereof, a certificate in form satisfactory to City certifying to the issuance of such insurance shall be forwarded to. , Loreen R. Mills, Risk Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR. 97223 Such policies or certificates must be delivered prior to commencement of the work. The procuring of .such required. insurance shall not be construed to limit Legal. Counsel's liability hereunder. Notwithstanding said insurance, Legal Counsel- shall be obligated for the total amount of any damage; injury-'-,or, loss caused.by negligence or neglect connected with, this contract. 9. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The City requires that, services provided pursuant to this Agreement' shall be provided to the City by a Legal Counsel which does not represent clients on matters contrary to City interests. Further, Legal Counsel shall not engage. services of an attorney and/or other' professional who individually, or' through members of his/her same, firm, represents clients'on matters contrary to'City interests. Should Legal Counsel represent clients on matters contrary to City interests or, engage the services of an attorney and/or other professional who , individually, or through members of his/her same -firm, represents clients. on matters contrary to City 'interests; Legal Counsel shall consult with the appropriate City representative regarding the conflict. After such consultation, the Legal Counsel shall have 30 days to eliminate the conflict to the satisfaction of the City. If such conflict is not eliminated. within the. specified time. period, 'the Agreement may be terminated pursuant to Section 13.of this agreement. 10. METHOD. PLACE OF GIVING. NOTICE, SUBMITTING BILLS & MAKING PAYMENTS All notices shall be made in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by mail. Notices sent by rriail'should be addressed as follows: City_ of Tigard (Legal Counsel). Attn: Attn: - Mail: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Mail: 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney Page 24 of 29 Tigard; OR 97223;, Phone: (503)-' Phone: Fax: Fax: Email Address: Email. Address: and when so addressed, shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. In all other instances, notices, bills and payments shall be deemed, given at the time of actual delivery., Changes may be made in the names and addresses of the personr to whom notices, bills and payments are to, be given by giving written notice pursuant, to this paragraph'.' All bills and payments shall be' sent to the attention of the . City's Senior'Accountant at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. 11. 'MERGER This writing is intended both as a final expression of the Agreement between the parties with respect to the -included terms and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement. No modification of this Agreement shall, be effective unless and until it is made in writing and signed'by both parties. 12. TERMINATION WITHOUT. CAUSE At any time and without cause, as authorized tinder Tigard Municipal Code 2.60.04 0, the City -shall have the right in its sole, discretion, .to terminate this Agreement by giving notice to Legal . Counsel. If City terminates the contract pursuant to this paragraph, it shall pay Legal Counsel for services rendered.to the date of termination.- Termination by .City must be done by:inotion of the City Council. 13. TERMINATION WITH CAUSE A., City may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to. Legal Counsel, or at such later.date as may be established by City, under any of the following conditions: 1. If City funding from federal, state, local, or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for, the purchase of the indicated quantity'of services. This Agreement maybe modified to accommodate a. reduction in funds. 2. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changes, or interpreted iri such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this Agreement. 3.. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Legal Counsel, its, subcontractors, agents, and employees' to. provide the services required by this,'Agreement is for any reason denied, revoked or. .not renewed. 4. If Legal Counsel becomes insolvent, if voluntary or involuntary petition in bankruptcy.is filed by or against Legal Counsel, if a receiver'or trustee is' appointed for` Legal Counsel, or if there is an assignment for the benefit of creditors' of Legal Counsel. n t 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney Page 25 of 29 Any such termination of this Agreement under paragraph (A) shall be without prejudice • to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination. B. City, by written notice -of default (including breach of contract) to Legal Counsel, may terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement: 1. If Legal, Counsel fails to provide'services called for by this Agreement within the.time specified herein or any extension thereof, or 2. If Legal Counsel fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement, or so fails' to, pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from City, fails to correct.such failures within ten (10) days or such other period as City may authorize. 3. If Legal Counsel fails to eliminate a conflict as described in Section 9 of this, Agreement. The . rights. and remedies of City provided, in the above clause related to defaults (including breach of contract) by Legal Counsel shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by.law or under this Agreement. If City terminates this Agreement under paragraph (B)', Legal Counsel shall'be entitled to receive as full payment for all services satisfactorily rendered and expenses incurred, an amount which bears the, same ratio. to the total fees specified in this Agreement as the services satisfactorily. rendered. by Legal Counsel bear to the total services otherwise required or be performed for such total.fee; provided, that there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damages, if .any, sustained by City due to breach of contract by Legal Counsel. Damages for breach of contract shall be those allowed by Oregon law, reasonable and necessary attorney fees, and other costs of litigation at-trial and upon, appeal. 14. ACCESS. TO RECORDS City shall. have access to books, documents,, papers and records of Legal Counsel that are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the., purpose of making . audits, examinations, -excerpts and transcripts. 15. CITY ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP/OCAA MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS Legal Counsel is responsible for maintaining Legal Counsel's professional standing as a member of the Oregon State Bar Association and the Oregon City Attorney's Association. 16. NON-WAIVER . The failure of City to insist upon or enforce:strict performance by Legal Counsel of, any, . ; of the, terms of this Agreement or to exercise any rights hereunder, should not be construed as a waiver, or relinquishment to.any,extent. of its rights to assert or rely upon such terms or rights on any future occasion. 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney / Page 26 of 29 17. ATTORNEYS' FEES In case suit or action is instituted to enforce the provisions' of this contract, the parties agree than the losing party shall pay, such sum- as the court may adjudge reasonable attorney fees and court.costs, including attorney's fees and court costs'on appeal. 18. GOVERNING LAW The provisions of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the laws of the State 'of Oregon. Any action or suits involving any question arising. under this Agreement must be brought in. the appropriate court of the State of Oregon. 19. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW Legal Counsel shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and . ordinances, applicable public contracts, and to the work to be done under this contract. 20. CONFLICT BETWEEN TERMS It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there by any conflict between the terms of this instrument.'in the proposal of the contract, this instrument shall- control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance' of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith. 21. AUDIT Legal Counsel'. shall maintain records to-, assure conformance with the terms and ' conditions of this . Agreement, ..and to: assure adequate performance 'and accurate expenditures within'the contract period. Legal_Counsel agrees to permit City, the State of Oregon,, the federal government, or their duly. authorized representatives' to audit all records pertaining to this Agreement to assure the accurate expenditure of funds. 22. SEVERABIL•ITY In the event any provision or portion of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall' remain in full force and'effect and shall in no way be affected or invalidated thereby. 23. COMPLETE AGREEMENT This Agreement and attached exhibits constitutes the entire Agreement 'between the . parties. 'No waiver, consent, modification; or change of terms of this Agreement,_shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification, or change if made, shall'be effective only in specific instances and for the specific purpose given. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not, specified herein regarding this Agreement. Legal Counsel, by the signature of its authorized representative; hereby acknowledges that he has read this' Agreement, understands,it and-agrees to.be bound by its terms and conditions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has caused this Agreement to be executed by .its. duly authorized undersigned officer and Legal Counsel .has executed this Agreement on the date hereinabove first written: 2005 RFP =General & Labor Attorney Page 27'of 29 Approved'by Tigard local Contract Review Board on the (Day) day of (Month), (Year) CITY OF TIGARD LEGAL COUNSEL By: By: Signature of City Manager Signature.of Legal Counsel Principal Printed Name of City Manager . Printed Name of Legal Counsel Principal Date: Dater t , r 2005 RFP -General & Labor Attorney Page 28 of 29' I ATTORNEY SERVICES CONTRACT EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF LEGAL SERVICES' The final Scope of Legal Services will be developed during the award phase based upon which direction the City take in•regkrds to one attorney,form performing all services v' rsius two firms performing the different services detailed in the RFP packet. 2005 RFP - General & Labor Attorney. Page 29 of 29 a 3 Item No. For Council.Newsletter dated - d MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx RE: Measure 37 Training DATE:" August'18, 2005 C: Tim. Ramis As Council is aware, two Measure.37 claims have been filed. One claim, Grabhorn Measure 37 Compensation Claim (M372005-00003), is tentatively scheduled for September 13, 2005. Staff is finalizing the staff report with the City Attorney's office. The City Attorney will provide Measure 37 training at the Council study session on August 23rd. Training will include background information on Measure 37, our code " requirements, and how to conduct the hearing: Attached is a copy of the PowerPoint presentation the City Attorney will userduring . the training session. OUTLINE • History ' Basic Provisions Compe imingnsation/ waiver MEASURE 37 = T Procedure • Tigard's Ordinance Timothy V. Ramis Apptication City Attorney Tigard Procedure Decision Options Decision Maker • Hearing Process HISTORY BASIC PROVISIONS • After Measure 7, which was a constitutional amendment with similar .Governments are required to either provisions to Measure 37, was ~ ) pay compensation when land use overturned by the Courts, the voters - (1 regulations restrict the use of property approved Measure 37 as a non- causing a reduction in market value or constitutional measure - (2) waive the regulations • Measure 37 passed with 61% of the vote • Measure 37 became effective in . December 2004 Timing Compensation /Waiver • Only those who owned at the time the • Claims must be brought within 2 years . regulations were adopted have a of the effective date of Measure 37, 2 Measure 37 claims years of passage of new regulations Compensation claims are.based on when restricting use, or 2 years of property acquired by the current owner or family member enforcement - Waiver is based on the regulations in effect at the time the current owner acquired the property Procedure : TIGARD'S ORDINANCE A claim-(written demand for compensation) • TMC Chapter 1.20 must be first made against the government Requires Measure 37 application to include enforcing the regulation- information about the property, the • If the government fails to pay or waive owner(s), the regulation at issue;. the within 180 days, the owner'can bring an amount of,compensation claimed, and the action in circuit court If the owner prevails in circuit court, the extent of any requested waiver owner is awarded attorney fees Requires the applicant to indicate a • Local governments may adopt procedures preference between compensation and waiver Tigard Procedure Decision Options • Applicant to pay deposit for costs • Deny the claim - Returned if applicant prevails • Pay compensation • Staff report and notice required . Waive or modify the regulations • Public hearing Claimant and others have a right to present evidence and argument - Duration of testimony may, be limited Decision Maker HEARING PROCEDURE • Council to make final decision, but can Not a land use hearing or decision, so land delegate to others the responsibility to use hearing requirements do not apply hold the hearing and make a • General due process concepts apply Applicant has right to present evidence and recommendation argument (codified) Tigard code expressly gives others the right to present evidence and argument Due process may give the Claimant the right'to rebut • Code explicitly allows time limits at hearing 3 Decision Options Deny Regulation does not restrict use No reduction in.market value Untimely Claimant/family not owner at right time Within statutory exception (nuisance etc.) City not responsible entity Other • Pay Compensation (and enforce regulation) • Waive, modify or suspend regulation(s) • 4 Measure 37 - Text of Measure Pagel. of 2 Measure 37 Text of Measure . The following provisions are added to and made a part of ORS-chapter. 197: (1) If a public entity enacts or enforces a new land use regu-lation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date of this amendment that restricts the use of private real property 'or any interest therein and has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein, then the owner of the property shall be paid just compensation. (2) Just compensation shall be equal.to the reduction in the fair market value of the affected property interest resulting from enactment or enforcement of the land use regulation as of the date the owner makes written demand for compensation under this act. (3) Subsection (1) of this act shall not apply to land use regulations: '(A) Restricting or prohibiting activities commonly and historically recognized as public nuisances under common law. This subsection shall be construed narrowly in favor of a finding of compensation under this act; (B) Restricting or prohibiting activities for the protection of public health and•safety, such as•fire and building codes, health and sanitation regulations, solid or hazardous waste regulations, and pollution control regulations; (C) To the extent the land use regulation is required to comply with federal law; (D) Restricting or prohibiting the use of a property for the purpose of selling pornography or performing nude dancing. Nothing in this subsection, however, is intended to affect or alter rights provided by the Oregon or United States Constitutions; or (E) Enacted prior to the date of acquisition of the property by the owner or a family member of the owner who owned the subject property prior to acquisition or inheritance-by the owner, whichever occurred first. (4) Just compensation under subsection (1) of this act shall be due the owner of the property if the land use regulation continues to be enforced against the property 180 days after the owner of the property makes written demand for compensation under this section .to the public entity enacting or enforcing the land use regulation.. (5) For claims arising from land use regulations enacted prior to the effective date of this act, written demand for compensation, under subsection (4) shall be made within two years of the effective date of this act, or the date the public entity applies the land use regulation as an approval criteria to an application submitted by the owner of the property, whichever is later. For claims arising from land use regulations enacted after the effective date of this act, written demand for compensation under subsection (4) shall be made within two years of the enactment of the land use regulation, or the date the owner of the property submits a land use application in which the land use regulation is an approval criteria, whichever is later. (6) If,a land use regulation continues to apply to the subject property more than 180 days after the present owner of thq,property has made written demand for compensation under this act, the present owner of the, property, or any interest therein, shall have a cause of action for compensation'under this act in the circuit, court in which the real property is located, and.the present owner of, the real property shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees, expenses, costs, and other disbursements reason-ably incurred to collect the compensation. (7) A metropolitan service district, city, 'or county, or state agency may adopt or apply procedures for the processing of claims under this act, but in no event shall these procedures act as' a prerequisite to the filing http:Hwww.sos.state.or.us/elections/noNi22004/guide/meas/m37_text.htrnl 8/19/2005 : Measure 37 - Text of Measure Page 2 of 2 of a compensation claim under. subsection (6) of this act, nor shall the failure of an owner of property to file an application for a land use permit with the local government serve as grounds for dismissal, abatement, or delay of a compensation claim under subsection (6) of this act. (8) Notwithstanding any other state statute or the availability of funds under subsection (10) of this act, in lieu of payment of just compensation under this act, the governing body responsible for enacting the land use regulation may modify, remove, or not to apply the land use regulation or land use regulations to allow the owner to use the property for a use permitted at the time the owner acquired the property. J (9) A decision by a governing body under this act shall not be considered a land use decision as defined in ORS 197.015(10). (10) Claims made under this section shall be paid from funds, if any, specifically allocated by the legislature, city, county, or metropolitan service district for payment of claims under this act. Notwithstanding the availability of funds under this subsection, a metropolitan service district, city, county, or state agency shall 1 have discretion to use-available funds to pay claims or to modify, remove, or not apply a land use regulation or land use regulations pursuant to subsection (6) of this act. If a(claim has not been paid. within two years from the date on which it accrues, the owner.shall be allowed to use the property as permitted at the time the owner acquired the property... (11) Definitions - for purposes ofithis section-. (A) "Family member" shall include the wife, husband,-son, daughter, mother, father, brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law, aunt, uncle; niece, nephew, stepparent, stepchild, grandparent, or grandchild of the owner of the property, an estate of any of the foregoing family members, or a legal entity owned by.any one or combination of these family members or the owner of the property. (B) "Land use regulation" shall include: (i) Any statute regulating the use of land or any interest therein'; (ii) Administrative rules and goals of the Land Conservation and Development Commission; (iii) Local government comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, land division ordinances, and transportation ordinances; (iv) Metropolitan service district regional framework plans, functional iplans, planning goals and objectives; and (v) Statutes and administrative rules regulating farming and forest practices. (C) "Owner" is the present owner of the property, or any interest therein. (D) "Public entity" shall include the state, a. metropolitan service district, a city, or a county. (12) The remedy created by this act is in addition to any other remedyi'under the Oregon or United States' Constitutions; and is not intended to modify or replace any'•other remedy. (13),If any portion.or portions of this act are declared invalid by a court of competent, jurisdiction, the remaining portions of.this act.shall remain in full force and'effect. hq:HWww.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/guide*/`meas/m37.. 8/19/2005 ' 'TIGARD MUNICIPAL:CODE Chapter 1.2 COMPENSATION,FOR B.' "Claimant means the., property owner REDUCTION IN.PROPERTY, who submits a claim ;for 'compensation under VALUE. Measure 37 in accordance with'Section 1.20:030. 'Sections: C.'' "Decision Maker" . means the City : Council or, any. person,' board, commission, or 1.20.010" Purpose. other entity to whom the Council . has delegated 1.20.020 Definitions. authority, to make 'decisions on• • Measure 37 1.20:030 Claims. ' claims: 1.20:040 Notice: 1.20.050 Staff Report. D. `.`Regulation' shall' mean a provision of 1.20:060. Decision Maker Proceedings. the City's comprehensive plan;*, community 1.20.070. Publ ic Hea ring. development code and transportation ordinances. 1.20.080 Decision.Maker Decision. 1'.20.090 Delegation of Authority and E:. "Restricts the use of property" Means. City Council Review. prohibiting a particular use of the . property or 1.20.100 Action by Neighboring:, making' that use only permissible -under certain Property Owners. conditions.- Regulations requiring, or setting 'fees 1.20.110 ..Authority. lw%be'charged are not restrictions on the use of 1.20.120 Deposit and Responsibility for, _ property. Costs. ' 1.20.130 Seve'rability. ` F.' • "Manager" means City' Manager or : designee. 1.20.010 Purpose. 1:20:030. Claims The purpose, of this chapter is' to provide A property owner wishing to make a. claim procedures and standards for claims for againsf,'the City under _Measure 37 shall first ' compensation'inade 'pursuant to 2004 state. ballot' submit a claim to the City. A claim under Measure `37Measure' 37 must. be in ,writing and -include: 1.20.020 Definitions A. Identification of the affected property. Identification may be by street address, As used, in this chapter, unless the context subdivision lot- number, tax lot number,, or any'',, . requires^otherwise: other information that.identifies the property. . A. `-`Affected property" means the private The name-.and contact information of : real'property that is. alleged to have suffered 'a the' person -making. the claim; the date the reduction in faire market value. as result of the Claimant acquired the property, and, if applicable, City's . regulation restricting the use ',of that the date. that a family member •of Claimant property and -for which` a property `owner seeks acquired the- property' and the names and compensation for the reduction in'value. ' relationships of family members. that are previous owners: 1-20-1' Code Update: 4105 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE C. A list of all' persons with an ownership • invalidate any'.action taken or decision made at the interest in or a lien on the property.': hearing. . D:. Identification of the regulation that is c 1.20.050 Staff Report alleged to restrict the use of:the affected property and a statement describing how the restriction. City staff shall prepare a report analyzing the affects the value of the property. claim. The staff report may be reviewed by the Community Development Director, Finance E. . A statement whether the Claimant Director, and Manager before being submitted to prefers compensation or a waiver, suspension' or the Decision Maker. modification of the regulation, and a statement describing the extent to which the regulation The staff report shall be submitted to the would need to be waived, suspended or modified Decision Maker, mailed to the Claimant, and to avoid the need for compensation. A description : made available. to the public at least seven days of the proposed use must be provided. before the public hearing required by Section 9.20.070. F. The amount' claimed as compensation" . and, documentation supporting the amount. The 1.20.060 . :Decision Maker Proceedings documentation shall include a market analysis, an appraisal, 'or other documentation . at least The Decision Maker shall 'hold a. public equivalent to a market analysis. hearing on the claim. The public hearing should- -normally be set within 150 days of submission of G. The name and -contact information of the claim but may be set at any time. The. the Claimant's authorized representative or. Decision Maker may hold an executive session on representatives, if applicable. the claim at any time. 1.20.040 Notice 1.20.070 Public Hearing The City shall provide notice of the hearing The' Claimant and any other person- shall be required by Section 1.20.070 to all-owners of the • provided a reasonable opportunity to.. present- property, lien holders and security. • interest evidence and argument at the public hearing.. The holders, record owners of property within' 500 feet . - Decision' Maker may limit the , duration of of the property, recognized community-. testimony. participation organizations for the area where the property is located, and anyone who has requested 1.20.080 Decision Maker Decision notice at least seven days before the hearing. The notice shall identify the property, state the date, A. In deciding the claim, the Decision time and place of the hearing, state the amount of Maker,may take any of the following actions: . the claim or statement describing the extent to which the regulations would need to be waived or , . 1. Deny the claim based on any one or suspended, the City contact person and phone more of the following findings: number, advise of the availability of the staff report and summarize the hearing procedures and a. The regulation' does not nature of the claim. Failure- of any person to restrict the use of the private real property.' receive notice or any defect in the notice shall, not 1-20-2. Code Update: 4105 TIGARD MUNICIPAL. CODE b. The fair market value of the compensation, the City shall continue'to apply and propert y is not reduced by the passage. or enforce the regulation:` Any, co M'pqnsation. shall enforcement of the regulation.. be paid from funds appropriated for that purpose. ' • The City may require any 'person receiving c. The claim.' was' not _ timely compensation to sign a waiver of future claims for,` filed. compensation. under Measure <37 and the City may record that waiver with the County Recorder. d. The, ' Claimant is not. the.. current property owner. . 3. ' Waive or not apply the regulation to allow the.' owner to, use ;.the property,, for a use e The : Claimant or . Tamily permitted at .the time"-the' Claimant acquired the .member of Claimant was not the property owner - property. of the time the regulation was adopted. 4.. Modify the regulation so, that it f. „The regulation is a historically does 'notgive rise to a •claiin for compensation. ,and, commonly recognized. nuisance law or a.. law Any such ino.dification shall be fo`r the specific . regulating pornography or nude-dancing. property only unless the City' follows the procedure for a legislative land use decision: ' g. The regulation is..,required'by federal law. 5: ' Conditionally waive or suspend the regulation -subject to receipt"of a defined''> amount •h.' . The regulation protects public of `contributions 'toward compensation by a health and safety. specifieddate from persons opposed to the waiver ' or. suspension, such 'as persons who;believe they i. The City -is not the entity . would •'be negatively ..'affected.', by waiver or ' responsible for,. payment. The City ` is not. suspension, with the waiver, or suspension, being • responsible if the challenged law, rule, ordinance,.. granted if the .defined amount of'contributions is.. resolution,.-'goal . or 'other enactment was not not `received by'. the specified date: If: the enacted or enforced bythe City. contributions are received, compensation shall, be, - paid within' 180 days, of the`. date the claim was, j.'.., The City has not taken -final filed., The specified date shall allow the City time action to *enforce., or apply the, .regulation to the to" • ..process the 'contributions. , and pay, . propert y for•which;compensation is claimed. compensation. k. The City has not established a, B.' The Decision Maker may take other fund for payment of claims:under_Measure 37. actions,' it :deems appropriate in individual circumstances, may modify. the listed." actions, 1. The Claimant is ' not legally Wand/0'r may combine the listed actions,' consistent entitled' to compensation for reason other than with Measure 37. The.. Decision Maker, . may those listed in subsections a throught.. The basis `negotiate.an acceptable solution with'the Claimant for this finding must be clearly explained;.. or may direct, staff to negotiate with the Claimant. In the event that the Decision Maker directs, staff 2. Pay, compensation, either in the, to', negotiate,' the matter shall be set for further amount requested. or in some . other 'amount. action by the Decision Maker no less than .175 supported . by the evidence.. if 'the .City pays days from the date of the notice of claim became 1-20-3 Code Update:. 4105 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE' complete. The Council shall take final action resolution, notwithstanding . any inconsistent within 180 days of the claim'.' The Decision provision in this code or the , -community Maker, shall take, actions 2 through 5 only if it development code. The' City may retain an determines the claim is valid. appraiser to assist the Decision Maker or Council determination. ' C.' A decision by a Decision Maker other than Council shall not be a final decision, but shall 1.201.120 Deposit and Responsibility, for be a recommendation to Council. Costs- 1.20.090 Delegation of Authority, and The Claimant shall provide a deposit of 'City Council Review $1,000 at the time:the claim is filed with the City. If, the claim'is determined to.be valid, the City 'The' Council may delegate author4y.to act as shall refund the entire deposit. If a claim is a Decision Maker to any person, board, denied and ultimately determined to be invalid., commission or other entity by motion, resolution the Claimant shall reimburse the City for-the costs, or' ordinance. The Council shall review all the City incurred in.processing the claim. If the recommendations 'of' the Decision Maker and amount of reimbursement exceeds the cost of, make the final- decision. If a' Decision Maker deposit, the Claimant shall pay any additional other than Council has made a recommendation to. amounts within 30 days of a demand by the City Council, Council may act on the recommendation for full reimbursement. If the amount of by motion or order without 'a Council hearing. -reimbursement is less -than the deposit, the City The Council may approve recommendations on its shall refund the difference to the Claimant. The consent agenda. City shall provide an invoice detailing its costs when demanding additional reimbursement or 1.20.100 Action by Neighboring providing a partial refund. Property Owners, 1.20.130 •.Severability If a claim results in a waiver.of enforcement of a regulation and the development allowed by If any section, phrase, clause, or part of this the waiver causes a reduction in value..of;other . Chapter is found to be invalid by a court of property located in the vicinity 'of the Claimant,. competent jurisdiction,, the remaining phrases, those property owners shall have the right to clauses, and parts shall. remain in full force and maintain an action against the Claimanv,in state .effect. (Ord. 04-12, Ord. 04-13).■ . circuit court to recover the amount of the* reduction. The nearby property owners, if successful, shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees. This section does not create a right of action against the City. - 1.20;110 Authority The City Council shall have the authority to take the actions listed in Section 1.20.080; including the authority to waive or suspend any provision of 'any City. code, ordinance or 1-20-4 Code Update: 4105 Cathy Wheatley - FW Annexation Testimony _ Pa e 1 From: "Julie Russell" <jarusse1159@comcast.net> To: <cathy@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Craig Dirksen" <craigd@ci.tiga'rd.or.us>, "Nick Wilson" <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Sydney Sherwood" <sydnejr@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Tom Woodruff' <tomw@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/23/200511:24:07 AM Subject: FW: Annexation Testimony Dear'Council and Cathy, Since I am not able to attend the City Council Meeting tonight, I am requesting the record regarding the four annexations be held open for an additional 7 days to allow time to review the staff report and the City Attorney response to my testimony. Thank You, Julie Russell From: Julie Russell [mailto:jarusse1159@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:58 AM To: 'cathy@ci.tigard.or.us'; Craig Dirksen; Nick Wilson; Sydney Sherwood; Tom Woodruff Subject: Annexation Testimony Dear Cathy, . Please submit my written testimony regarding the annexation of the four properties on the agenda last week. My testimony is attached. Best Regards, Julie Russell August 16, 2005 Julie Russell 12662 SW Terraview Dr Tigard, OR 9.7224 Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am submitting my written testimony to oppose the annexation of the four properties (Mountain View Estates, Arlington Heights 3, Wilson Ridge and Alberta Rider/ Summit Ridge.) I testified against this annexation on August 9, 2005 and request that my written testimony be made part of the public record. I would have hoped that the council would have considered the defeat of the Bull Mountain annexation vote in Nov. of 2004. Where 89% of the residents of the mountain clearly stated that they did not want to be annexed to Tigard. It is quite clear from your aggressive strategy that Tigard intends to proceed by forcing builders to annex by denying building permits, unless they agree to annex. It is also quite clear that you intend to create irregular boundaries and islands, thus taking away property owner's right to vote on annexation decisions. This is abusive and bad public policy. The Oregon legislature did pass some laws this session to change annexation policy. HB 2484 guarantees a, dual majority vote, and SB 887 prevents-island annexation for at least two years. I think Tigard needs to be careful to follow the intent of these laws that have been passed and will continue to be passed to protect the rights of residents to choose whom will govern them. I disagree with Tigard's assumption in the Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1. The city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Tigard doesn't have or recognize 'any Neighborhood Planning Organizations in the unincorporated area, (Urban Service Area), and Tigard has admitted they do not recognize CP04B. CP04B is the.Citizen Participation Organization for Bull Mountain and parts of Tigard. Tigard. has openly stated they will not send city staff to CP04B meetings and do not acknowledge, the CPOs as they are organized by Washington County. As a result, unincorporated Bull Mountain residents have no recognition in community organizations in the city. Tigard limits the involvement of unincorporated Bull Mountain residents on committees in Tigard, and refuses to appoint those residents to various committees, such as the budget committee. I believe this violates the.policy. Also Tigard does not involve citizens in the pre-application meetings, unlike Lake Oswego. Tigard did not notify every property owner in Arlington Heights 1 and 2 regarding this hearing. Those property owners could be affected if this annexation' passes,•as they will become an island, and could be annexed . without a vote. f ' I dispute Tigard's findings in Policy 10.1.2. Tigard admits that none of these annexations' eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated territory. Tigard states that these annexations will not create an irregular boundry. This proposed annexation will definitely create irregular boundaries and difficulties for service providers to know if the property is inside or outside of city limits. The Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge proposal states that it is addressing a situation where parcels fall in and outside of city limits. Their formation is the result of disjointed annexation and plat approval timing. This was due to the annexation in Dec. 2004 that again created irregular, inconsistent boundaries. The Tigard Code 10. 1.2 specially states the requirement a. The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated territory, or b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside of city limits. These four annexations do not comply with either of these requirements. The Washington County Sheriff's Department did not have the opportunity to comment on these annexation requests and the affect on the service of the area, and the affect of the withdrawal of those properties from the.Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District. I dispute CDC Section 18.320.020. This area has been identified as. severely, park deficient by Washington County in the Bull Mountain Community Plan- in 1983, and the City of Tigard. There are.no solutions for sufficient capacity to remedy the lack of parks. Annexation to Tigard, by allowing additional homes with no identified parks or open space only increases this deficiency. Tigard has a goal of providing 11 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, but.currently only has 8 acres per 1,000 residents. These annexations only create more of a park deficiency, for Tigard. I also dispute the fact that the roads and transportation plan can handle the additional capacity created by these subdivisions. Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend Road are.the only access points to Hwy 99 which is at or near capacity at every intersection through Tigard per ODOT. Additional building permits only make the already overloaded Highway.•99 worse., These subdivisions also give'access to collectors and aterials of Beef Bend Road and Bull Mountain Road, which the Washington County code and transportation plans say few access points should be granted. I dispute the timing and assignments of the zoning designations as they completely ignore the Bull Mountain Community Plan zoning, which, still identifies the slopes and summit as being low density, not medium density, and the zoning per the Bull Mountain Community Plan is still R-6, or 6 lots per acre not 7. The assignment of these " designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. So why was Summit Ridge allowed to build at R-7 designations, when it was not annexed to Tigard and still under Washington County zoning of R-6? I dispute the fact that all residents were notified of the proposal. to annex parts of Bull Mountain Road-and Beef Bend Road. This is not clear on the-vicinity map. Which roads or parts of roads are actually being annexed? Who was notified? All surrounding ' residents and affected property owners? When did parts of Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend Road'become city streets? The Washington County Transportation Plan still identifies them as county streets. I do not know of any residents or Citizen Participation Organizations being advised that any roads in the area have experienced a change in" jurisdiction. What about the residents east of SW 133`d. This could create an island for all of those property owners. What comments were received.by the Washington County Sheriff's department and other service providers;about these irregular boundaries and islands? i Who will service those areas, and how will this confusing patchwork of boundaries be serviced? I dispute Metro 3.09 conclusions. The proposed annexation will interfere with the timely, orderly and economic provisions of public facilities and services. Public facilities and services are provided by various service districts and do not require annexation in order to continue those services. I oppose'the annexation file of Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge Annexation. Alberta Rider is a public school and should not be required to annex to Tigard prior to receiving a final building permit. I believe again'this is very. bad public policy and quite probably illegal. The only thing to be gained by requiring Alberta Rider Elementary School to annex is the surrounding of neighboring property,'and the. creation of islands to continue the aggressive annexation policy of Tigard. Also the property owner Alberta Rider did not consent to annex to Tigard. Alberta. Rider and Summit Ridge should not be processed in the same annexation, one is owned by the•Tigard/Tualatin School District and the other is a private developer. I oppose-the, Summit Ridge annexation, as Arbor Summit and ,Summit Ridge were not bordering city limits, when they were annexed in Dec. of 2004. I also dispute the statement that a double majority method was-used for one of the parcels of Summit Ridge, Venture Properties is not an elector in the area, but simply the developer, so how did. that election take place, and how can the future residents be held accountable to this hostile annexation? I disagree with the statement that some of the property in Arbor Summit and Summit Ridge were inside the city and some outside of the city. None of this property was inside of the`city prior to the development of the.property and annexation in Dec. 2004. I oppose the annexation of the Arlington Heights 3 subdivision on the grounds that they are annexing to the Arlington Heights Homeowners Association and are part of the Arlington Heights Neighborhood. Arlington Heights 1 and 2 are not annexed to Tigard and were approved under county land use regulations in 1997. 1 don't believe Tigard can legally annex only one portion of a subdivision. Respectfully, Julie Russell la`r~ MEASUR37 E Timothy V • Rams ity omeY At C OUTLINE • History • Basic Provisions - Compensation /waiver - Timing - Procedure • Tigard.'s- Ordinance - Application - Tigard Procedure - Decision Options - Decision Maker • Hearing Process • Recent Developments HISTORY • After Measure 7, which was a constitutional amendment with similar .provisions to Measure 37, was overturned by the Courts, the, voters approved Measure 37 as a-.non- constitutional measure • Measure 37 passed with 61 % of the vote • Measure- 37 became effective in December 2004 BASIC PROVISIONS'' • Governments. are .required to either (1) pay compensation when land- use regulations restrict.the use of property causing a reduction in market value or - (2) waive the regulations sation /.Waiver Compen owned at the time the- . Only those why ted have. a regulations were adop Measure 37 claims don, claims are based on when - Compe nsa current owner or property acquired by the member family' in .Waiver is based on the cugulations ent owner effect at the time the acquired- the property Timing thin 2 years ust be brOU~ht w sure- 37 ' 2 clal s. m date °f Me a of the: effective P-, ~ations f assa~e °f e)N,. red yea rs ° P or 2 years of use restrctin ent enf orcem pr-oced,ure for compensato and n written de a a~nst the,, governme Q claim (first made against List be the re~ulation . give enforcing meat fails to Pay an brim an If the govern the owner ~ within X 80 days circuit court court, the action in circuit the owner prevails in fees If aided attorney owner is aw adopt Proures cedLOCal gO'vernments may TI.GARD'.S ORDI'NA.NCE . • TMC Chapter 1Requires' Measure 37 application to include information about. the property, the owner(s), the- regulation at issue',, the amount of compensation claimed, and the extent of any requested waiver. • .Requires the applicant to indicate a preference between compensation and waiver Tigard Procedure— • Applicant to .pay deposit for. costs -Returned if applicant prevails Staff report and. notice required,.. • Pu tic hear-ina - Claiman'~ and others have a right to present evidence -and argument - Duration of testimony may be limited, Decision Options -Deny t• Por.modify the. regulations D . Maker • C ouncil to'.- make final decisio.n,, but can delegate to-others the: responsibility to ' hold the hearing and make a recommendation HEARING PROCEDURE • Not a land. use hearing or decision-- so land i ~ use hrequirements do not apply. • General due pro'cess..c'oncepts apply - Applicant has right to present evidence and argument _(codified) - Tigard code expressly gives others the right to present evidence and argument - Due process. may give the Claimant the right to rebut • Callows time-lim'its at hearing_ on Olp tion. DeCiS~ s not restrict use • deny doe alue ulation Reg No redu ction in market v - N ht time U ntimelY owner at rig itY not nce etc•) _ Claimant/ f am exception. (puls' n. statutory Withi not responsible: entity city ulation) other and enforce red Compensation C na regulation(S) end, . Pay or susp . Waive, modify RECENT DEVELO:PMENTS..~. • Attorney General Opinion: Wai.vers..cannotbe transferred • Legislature: No action • Metro Goal 5 Model. Ordinanc*e:, Proposes Metro. take responsibilifiy for compensation • State''& Oregon: Transfers to an LLC create` -anew ownership (Clackamas County reaches opposite result Item No. 2.1 For Council Meeting of - ~d;,; Proclamation National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month September, 2005` , WHEREAS, substance use and addiction result in huge societal and economic costs. It was recently estimated that the cost of untreated addiction in the United States is $294 billion a year. Despite this'staggering statistic, 76 percent of people in' need of treatment for a problem with illicit drugs; did not seek or receive treatment; and WHEREAS,. the toll substance abuse takes on family, friends, and community is immeasurable; and WHEREAS, every day in every part of the United States, men, women, and youth are entering 5 treatment and beginning the road to recovery and families are seeking hope and. recovery in support programs and counseling, and A 'WHEREAS, National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month celebrates. the tremendous :strides taken by individuals who have undergone successful treatment, families in recovery, and h,..r those in the treatment field who have.dedicated their lives to helping people recover; and WHEREAS, this year's theme, 'Join the, Voices for Recovery: Healing lives, Families;.and Communities", invites all segments of society to join the recovery community in Improving the quality of treatment programs and coordinated, services In.an effort to eradicate'the disease of . addiction; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Centef for-Substance Abuse Treatment; and the Office of National Drug Control Policy; Invite all residents of Tigard to participate in National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Mayor Craig Dirksen of the City of Tigard, Oregon, do.hereby proclaim the month of.September 2005 as., y NATIONAL ALCOHOL AND DRAG ADDICTION .RECOVERY MONTH t g= Dated this day of , 2005.L - IN WITNESS WHEREOF; 'I have hereunto set my,hand and'caused the Seal of the City of Tigard to be'"affixed.s Craig Dirksen, Mayor ' City of Tigard Attest: + w. City Recorder. * r~ ntf} '~r~ti °+i/~, t ~ pIt .3 tiP ~ tt1 ~ iU y ~'r ~,G~ ask ~ '~~ci' 7~-iil ~ , .P ..dal N + i..i.. ++'~fY..•~,,,.~ t~ Jl~~, .,L•~.,~'+ ~i + ~ • ti` / U C , , 4fRNu v „ n + .?PC SE _te ~ '~A .?fe w rN'." 'N~St ~Y Item No. 2.2 For Council Meeting of 8 -2-3 -&IT n '';~'•.~tl ~~~ir^ atil'ulq„~.~~''ad~ .~1~~~~~#/ii Yk~•`'~d~iit~+•~a~~~~; ; t•S pF*#~ ~ 4pg„.: f: 0 ~~"lasm•.,'a r"' ` i F'`~~va`;3'~`~•.4 WW~ rNN PROCLAMATION u .,.1. . Stepfamily : Day h WHEREAS, Stepfamily Day is enhanced by our strong commitment to support the stepfamilies of o our nation in their mission to raise their children create strong family strictures to support the1 individual members of the family, and insdII.in them a sense of responsibility to.all extended family members; and WHEREAS,, approximately half of all Americans are currently Involved in some form of stepfamily relationship and it is the vision of Founder, Michigan's ChristyBorgeld and the " Stepfamily Association of American, that all stepfamilies In the United States be accepted, supported and successful; and WHEREAS, Tigard, and our nation has been blessed by thousands upon thousands of loving. stepparents and stepchildren who are daily, reminders of the joy, trials, and triumphs of the stepfamily experience and of the boundless'. love, contained in the bond between all types of parents and children; and WHEREAS, Stepfamily Day is a day to celebrate the many invaluable :contributions stepfamilies have made to enriching the lives and life experience of the children and parents of America and to . strengthening the fabric of American families and society; . NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT 1' Craig Dirksen, Mayor of Tigard, on'behaif of the entire City Council, do hereby 'pioclaim:. ' September 1'6, 2005 Stepfamily-Day, in' Tigard, Oregon and urge our citizens, businesses and organizations to join in this, observance. Dated this day of 2005. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Tigard tt uU to be affixed. Craig Dirksen, Mayor ' City of Tigard Attest: City Recorder'. r ' AGENDA ITEM NO.3 . CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE : AUGUST 23, 2005 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear'from you on other issues not on the agenda,. but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. This is a City of Tigard pubiic meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's publk meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and.addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED <4~ `~v~y flob~~ Loss o c GV'4tiwSVact ~~5 S'n/ CGSVYG~i C4-. IhCW'o ~A Vusc v i Curd OU C1 1 ZZ U Gtrtjf. ~(O(CL~l SO'b C20 - 2-73j -cA,9etgda • r~ 5 y~ ~w c~a.tc-rte r~ ~ K- . mod, ocZ q 72 2.y 6-34 o S .W Z~ t~~ C~-rev-~ • ~;0); ~72z Y Cf So ~o 5; co ahem CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Page 1 ITTO o ~ cc~G . ~ X110 ~,vT~~S AGENDA ITEM NO.3 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE : AUGUST 23, 2005 (Limited to 2 minutes,or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff.. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of,the meeting. Thank you. This is a City of >igard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All. written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included_ in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED V(r1 n ~'.C~ , ~I ~~c~~rcm cam Yl~i1'►fi~'► . 10 It C4- - 7Vnnc~. amc~,fC S 6u) (nWA CZ~St T o, ~17~a~ -603 boo A I( k- Dew I S -C L, 4S SW C~tkr~, Lt S~~r~t tJSti~."t' . T G.f.,l OQ 97'aa t~ e4 < ve I rf ~f4lf G v ~ 1 S 2 g~3 s~-4 r~ Ga a~ e- 1 2rDt 02 zZ CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Page 2 AGENDA ITEM # - FOR AGENDA OF 8/23/05 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE' A oint Citizen Members to the City Center Adviso Commission PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK " CITY MGR. OK 1 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL • . Should Council approve a resolution making four citizen at-large appointments to the City Center Advisory Commission? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends staff approve the,proposed resolution making the appointments.. INFORMATION SUMMARY At its May 10`.'' meeting, Council approved a resolution establishing the initial membership of the City Center . Advisory Commission (CCAC) to include 6 Downtown-Task Force members, 1 Planning Commission member, 1 Park and Recreation Board member, and up to 4 City residents or property owners at-large. The City Center Advisory Commission is responsible for developing a draft urban renewal plan. This urban renewal plan is an action plan that will lay out the detailed funding sources and timeline for the physical accomplishment of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. The 4 at-large positions are unfilled at this time. Altogether, 7 people expressed interest in serving on the City Center Advisory Commission and were interviewed by the Mayor's Appointments Advisory Committee during July and August. One candidate later withdrew her name from consideration for personal reasons. Following these interviews, the Appointments Committee voted to forward to Council a recommendation to fill the 4 vacant at-large positions with the following candidates: Lily Lilly, Alice Elli's Gaut, Roger Potthoff, and Suzanne Gallagher. It is recommended that Council consider appointing the two remaining community candidates (Alexander Craghead and Ralf Hughes) as alternates. These would be unofficial,- non-voting-positions. The alternate .members could attend CCAC meetings and would be available to fill a vacancy should any at-large member resign or move away. The attached proposed resolution would appoint Lily Lilly, Alice Ellis Gaut, Roger Potthoff, and Suzanne .Gallagher to serve on'the CCAC as at-large members and Ralf Hughes and Alexander Craghead to serve as alternate at-large members. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED No alternatives considered VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Community Character & Quality of Life, Volunteerism Goal #L• City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: A Proposed Resolution Appointing Members and Alternatesho the City Center Advisory Commission. FISCAL NOTES These are volunteer positions and have no-budgetary impact. i/citywide/sum/ccac.appointments ~~-ehC'~Gc. ~"-e m ~ Item No. . ~~en C a;- ~ 8 • ~3; os- pp For Council Newsletter dated 7' d~J MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM:. Jim Hendryx RE:: City Center Advisory Commission Appointments DATE: August 18,.2005 My memo to Council on August .10th indicated that Council is'scheduled to consider a resolution appointing 4 citizens to the City Center Advisory Commission on August 23rd. The last interview was,held on. August. 15th. The Council subcommittee made its decision on the candidates and forwarded the information to me.,, As I indicated in my previous memo, the packet materials are being sent to you later . than usual. Attached is the Agenda. Item Summaryand Resolution for your August 23rd meeting., AGENDA ITEM # 43 FOR AGENDA OF August 23, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Withdrawal of the Wall Street Railroad Crossing Application PREPARED BY: A.P. Du Vas- DEPT HEAD OK: A.P. uenas CITY MGR OK: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council authorize the withdrawal of the at-grade railroad crossing application for the Proposed Wall Street Local Improvement District (LID) Project? STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council, by motion, authorize the withdrawal of the at-grade railroad crossing application for the Proposed Wall Street LID Project. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed Wall. Street connects Hall Boulevard with Hunziker Street.. The purchase agreement! for the library property required the City to reasonably cooperate with the seller to obtain approval for an at-grade crossing of the existing railroad tracks that would make the connection between Hall and Hunziker possible and provide access to the private properties adjacent to the tracks. The City applied for an at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks in December 2003. Portland & Western Railroad objected to the at-grade crossing and the City requested a heari ng to resolve the matter. Two prehearing meetings have been held to date and at least one more will be scheduled before a formal hearing date is set. Portland & Western has provided -information that it needs about a mile of track for its switching operations and uses the railroad tracks between Tiedeman Avenue and Bonita Road for this purpose. Because a crossing anywhere along this route would add further restrictions to their switching operations, Portland & Western strongly objects to the proposed crossing. Because of potential safety issues with at-grade crossings, ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation) Rail also objects to adding a new crossing without closing an equivalent. crossing elsewhere. The upcoming commuter rail project complicates the issue by adding commuter trains to the freight trains currently using the tracks through the City of Tigard thereby increasing the-rail traffic once the project is completed. Because the railroad company strongly objects to the crossing and can demonstrate that they would be adversely affected by the crossing, approval of the at-grade crossing application is unlikely on that factor alone. To continue the process to its inevitable conclusion would incur additional expenses. Withdrawal of the application before the hearing would avoid attorney and other expenses involved in a hearing and would be preferable to a decision denying the application. The City Attorney has advised staff and Council that the City obligations have been met with the efforts made to date and that it is no longer reasonable to continue with a process that almost certainly would result in a denial. The withdrawal of the. application does not mean the City could not again request a crossing at later time, if circumstances become much more favorable to its approval. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Continue with a hearing on the application until a judgment is rendered. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The Wall Street connection from Hall Boulevard to Hunziker Street meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal of Improve Traffic. Flow by creating an alternative route that bypasses the Hall/Hunziker/Scoffins signals and allows traffic to move directly to Hunziker Street from Hall Boulevard south of City Hall. ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES Although the costs for continuing with the formal hearing are hard to estimate, it could conceivably cost up to $20,000 or more to continue with the process to its conclusion, assuming that no further appeals are contemplated. This cost includes staff time, City Attorney costs, expert testimony from the City's consultants, and miscellaneous other costs. 11engtgusicouncil agenda summadesi8-29-05 withdrawal of the wall street railroad crossing application ais,doc AGENDA ITEM # ' FOR AGENDA OF August 23, 2005 CITY. OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution Authorizing the MTIP Funding for the Greenburg Road Project to be Held in Reserve for a Future City Project. PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenasas DEPT HEAD OK: A. ~Duenqs CITY MGR OK: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council approve a resolution authorizing the MTIP (Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program) funding for the Greenburg Road Project to be held 'in reserve for a future City project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council, by motion, approve the attached resolution authorizing the MTIP funding for the Greenburg Road Project to be held in reserve for a future-City project... INFORMATION SUMMARY The widening.of Greenburg Road south of the Highway 217 Overcrossing (from Shady Lane to-Tiedeman Avenue) was provided federal MTIP (Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program) funding through Metro Priorities 2000 & 2002 MTIP project solicitations in the amount of $660,000. The project was additionally funded in the amount of $1,000,000 through the'2007-09. project selection process. Total federal MTIP funding is $1,660,000. The original estimate for the project in 1999 was'approximately $2,500;000. Local ..funding match based on the original. estimate would be approximately one-third of the total project cost. The current estimated cost for the project has doubled to approximately $5,000,000 since the initial funding was approved in 2000. The local funding match is now approximately two-thirds of the project cost. The estimated costs-are extraordinarily high for such a short segment of street.and Council has directed that the project be redefined or downsized. Metro has agreed to consider placing the hinds in a. reserve account to,be applied to a high priority project in the, vicinity of the Washington Square'Regional Center, Highway 99W, or. the Tigard Downtown (Town Center) area. Studies authorized in FY 2005-06 for the Highway 99W corridor and the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W intersection are expected to produce a list of high priority projects, from which an appropriate project can be selected for this funding. Council is requested, by resolution, to authorize the funds to be held in reserve until an appropriate project can be chosen. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Reduce.the scope of the original project to be.commensurate with the-MTIP funding available. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The widening of Greenburg Road between Shady Lane and Tiedeman Avenue meets the Tigard Beyond. Tomorrow goals of Improve Traff c Flow and Improve Traffic Safety. ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution authorizing the MTIP funding for the Greenberg Road Improvement Project to be placed in a reserve account pending selection of a high priority City.project in the future. FISCAL NOTES MTIP funds in* the aggregate amount of $1,660,000 would be placed in a reserve account at Metro until such time as a high priority project -is identified. Studies authorized in FY 2005-06 for the Highway 99W corridor and the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W intersection are expected to produce a list of high priority projects, from which an appropriate project can be selected for this funding. h\eng\gus\councll agenda summaries\8-23-05 resolution authorizing mtip funding for greenburg road to be held in reserve eis.doc AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 23, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY " ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Introduction of new Tigard Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, Jeremy Monlux, and President, Pam Brown. PREPARED BY: Bill Dickinson . ' DEPT. HEAD OK 44vy)l CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The Tigard Chamber of Commerce now has a new President and a new Executive Director. Chief Dickinson would like to introduce to-the Council -Jeremy Monlux, the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director and Pam Brown, the new Chamber President. This is for information only, no action is required by City Council. These new members of the Chamber of Commerce would like to briefly share their thoughts on how the Chamber will continue to work in this community. s STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard assigns a City staff: member to serve as an ex officio member of the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and has traditionally tried to maintain a good relationship with the Chamber of Commerce and to keep the lines of communication open between the business community and the City. This introduction of the new . President and Executive' Director will offer an opportunity for, them to. share their goals and viewpoints, as well as offering the Council'members a chance to ask questions and share insights,. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Community Character & Quality of Life Goals: Communication Goals #1 and #2; Central Business District Goal # 1; and Community Events Goals #I and #2. In the. Growth and Growth Management section, Goal #5; and Public Safety Goal #1. ; ATTACHMENT LIST No attachments. FISCALNOTES . with this item > cost associate AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 23, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Resolution Setting Forth Land Acquisition Guidelines to be Considered by Council When Acquiring Parks and GreenwM Properties PREPARED BY:. Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK , CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council adopt a resolution setting forth land acquisition guidelines to be considered by Council when acquiring parks and greenway properties? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution setting forth land acquisition guidelines to be considered by Council when acquiring parks and greenway properties. INFORMATION SUMMARY The attached resolution, adopting guidelines developed by Council to use as Council considers the locations and acquisitions of parks and greenway properties, was developed as an outgrowth of a Council discussion on establishing guiding principles for purchasing land. The Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) has reviewed and approved, in principle, the resolution. The guidelines in the resolution are as follows: 1: Evaluate all park and greenway donation offers and potential property purchases and submit a staff recommendation to the City Council for each donation and/or property purchase, 2: Prioritize the search and evaluation of future park sites to those areas identified as currently underserved (the City's adopted Park System Master Plan defines "underserved" areas as areas not within one-half mile of a neighborhood park), 3: Allocate use of City general funds for purchases that reduce current park deficiencies and use park SDCs for acquiring land needed for current and future growth, 4: Look to serve those areas which will become park deficient over time, 5: Look to purchase or obtain parcels of land with some size as compared to multiple, non-contiguous, small parcels if possible, 6: Consider and evaluate the acquisition of suitable property outside the City Limits, and 7: Consider land banking adequate property for future park development. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not adopt resolution. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY 2005 Council Goal to Address Growth - "Identify and Acquire parks and open spaces" ATTACHMENT LIST Attachments: o Resolution - "A resolution adopting guidelines to use in the evaluation of the location and acquisition of park and greenway properties." FISCAL NOTES On June 14, 2005, Council approved and adopted the FY 2005-06 Budget. The budget contains a $2,144,025 appropriation for park acquisition and development. 'AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF Aug. 23, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE LibrarQperations Update PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Update of library operations STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends opening on Thursdays from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. beginning in October. The result would be to cut 3 hours per week from the Library's schedule-an overall reduction from its current 58 hours to 55 hours per week. INFORMATION SUMMARY When the library reopened on Sundays in March 2005, the understanding was that money from the Houghton bequest would only be used through the end of Fiscal Year '04-`05. The library's future schedule would depend upon its future budget. Sundays have been so popular at the library that the Library Board and staff are committed to staying open on Sundays and closing on alternative days. In June 2005, Sundays experienced the busiest hourly circulation, averaging 384 items per hour. The number of visits totaled 33,833 in June 49.3 percent over June 2004. Given this evidence of the public's continued support of the library, it is a difficult time to contemplate, reducing hours. The following considerations were taken into account: 1) Inconvenience the public as little as possible. 2) Stay open during times when we experience peak usage. 3) Maximize access to the library in order to enhance public enjoyment of the Summer Reading program for both children and adults. 4) Maintain consistency in the schedule as much as possible. 5) Maintain a 7-day per week schedule. r As a result, the recommendation of the Board and staff • is to close three hours a week on Thursday mornings beginning in October. This proposal will allow us to maintain current hours for the first quarter of Fiscal Year '05- '06. Beginning October 1, the Library's schedule would be: Sundays: 1 p.m.-5 p.m. Thursdays`l p.m.-8 p.m. Mondays 10 a.m. - 8 p.m. Fridays 10 a.m.-5 p.m. Tuesdays 10 a.m. - 8 p.m. Saturdays 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. Wednesdays 10 a.m. - 8 p.m. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1) Close Monday mornings. 2) Close Friday mornings. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal #3:. Adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning programs and services for all ages. FISCAL NOTES MEMORANDUM TO: Craig Prosser, Interim City Manager FROM: Margaret Barnes, Library Director RE: Library Hours DATE: 8/1/05 After much deliberation, as well as discussion with the Library Board, we have decided to close the library on Thursday mornings beginning Oct. 1. The library would open up at 1 p.m. on Thursdays. Starting Oct. 1, the Library schedule will be: Sundays: 1 p.m.- 5 p.m. Mondays-Wednesdays: 10 a.m.-8 p.m. Thursdays: 1 p.m.- 8 p.m. Fridays-Saturdays: 10 a.m.-5 p.m. This will be the second time in 2005 that we have adjusted hours. When we opened on Sundays in March, it was through the generosity of the Tigard family, who allowed us to use funds from the Grace Tigard Houghton bequest fund. Those funds allowed the library to re-open on Sundays for four months until the end of the fiscal year. Sundays have become one of the most popular days at the library. In June we experienced our busiest circulation per hour on Sundays at 384 items per hour. In the face of such popularity, we are committed to remaining open on Sundays. During the bond measure campaign for the new library, the public asked repeatedly if we would-be able to staff and maintain a library more than 3 times larger than the old one. We responded that we would increase staff incrementally as the budget process allowed. At the time we did not anticipate losing funding from the county because historically the countywide library levies passed easily. The FY 2005-06 budget did not provide funds for additional regular staff. The number of visits by library users totaled 33,833 in June---49.3 percent over June 2004. Given this evidence of the public's continued support of the library, it is a difficult time to contemplate reducing hours. In order to maintain an adequate level of service, however, we reluctantly reached the conclusion that we would need to close three hours per week. The following considerations were taken into account: 1) Inconveniencing the public as little as possible. 2) Staying open during times when we experience peak usage. 3) Maximizing access to the library in order to enhance public enjoyment of the summer reading programs for children.and adults. 4) Maintaining consistency in the schedule as much as possible. 5) Remaining open seven days a week. We considered closing on Monday or Friday mornings, but the statistics did not support, that proposal. Both days are more popular than Thursdays. Consequently, we recommend closing on Thursday mornings. Weekday evenings are also very busy. Staying open then is also a priority. We anticipate that the new schedule will remain in effect for the rest of the fiscal year. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 8/23/2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adoption of Findings Approving the Appeal for the. Tigard First Baptist Church PREPARED BY: Morgan Tracy DEPT HEAD OK TY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL This matter is being brought back to City Council' following. the public,hearing on the applicant's appeal to adopt findings, approving the appeal and permitting an additional limited use access on SW Gaarde.- The Council will. need to review the findings as amended and adopt the draft resolution. . -STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that, if Council "determines the revised findings accurately reflect their discussion from the July 26, 2005 hearing, Council should adopt the revised findings and approve the resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY This matter is being scheduled following the public hearing regarding the applicant's appeal on July 26`h after being continued from the July. 12, 2005 hearing.. This appeal was centered around the Hearings Officer's denial of the applicant's request for approval of an adjustment to allow an access on SW Gaarde that does not conform to the 600 foot driveway spacing standards along an arterial street. The appellant suXplied Council with additional evidence and testimony. Council deliberated the merits of the appeal at its July 26 hearing, and found on balance that the church had met the burden of proof to grant a limited use access. To mitigate. for potential traffic issues, the Council required that the access be gated to prevent general public access, but fhat church patrons could use the access in conjunction with church services, and the 'gate.may be opened only from 4:00 pm Saturdays until 9:00 pm Sundays, from 4:00 pm Christmas Eve until 1:00 am Christmas Day, and from 4:00 pm Good Friday until 1:00 am the day following. In order to prevent discrepancies between different religious institutions' observation of Christmas and Easter, the city attorney has recommended that the words "as observed by the Tigard First Baptist Church" be incorporated into the condition. OT14ER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Reject-the amended findings or modify-the amended findings. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A • ENT LIST ' - 1 ' ATT ACHM - - . . esoluon• ' jell Resolipoll. City Coun final Draft meat to Condition # 34 F Amend - - Exhibit A - Amended Findings Final Order Exh~b't.B _ H~arings.Officer NpTES Exhibit C FISCAL aid by the appellant. Appeal fees have been p Item No. For Council Newsletter dated S~ AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 23, 2005 CITY'OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Mountain View- Estates Subdivision. Annexation (ZCA2004-00004 Arlington Heights 3 Subdivision Annexation • (ZCA2005-00001)/Wilson Ridge Subdivision Annexation ZCA2005700002 /Alberta. Rider/Summit Ride Subdivision Annexatio ZCA2005=00003 , PREPARED BY: t Morgan Tracy . DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK a L Z' 'ISSUEBEFORE THE COUNCIL Should- the City Council.approve the' proposed annexation requests? . STAFF RECOMMENDATION" Adopt the four attached Ordinances approving the annexation requests. INFORMATION SUMMARY City Council held a public hearing on'these four annexation requests on, August 9, 2005. Prior to the hearing, staff provided Council 'with, supplemental findings demonstrating. compliance with ORS Chapter 222, and excluding Ms. Alberta Ri'der's life tenancy area from the annexation since consent to the annexation had not' been obtained from her. Staff revised the map.and legal description to reflect this change. During the hearing, a number,of residents provided testimony, and two 6f•th6 applicants (for Wilson Ridge and Arlington Heights 3) spoke in, support of the annexation requests. Several individuals requested that the record remain ,open for 7 days to allow submittal of additional written comments.; Upon direction from the .City Attorney, the Council closed the public hearing portion and held the record, open for written cbinments until August 16, 2005 at 5:00. Twelve individuals submitted comments during that,period as shown in ATTACHMENT 1. Staff also provided written responses to the questions raised as shown in ATTACHMENT 2. . The City Attorney prepared legal findings to respond;to the comments that,were raised during the' August 9th hearing, and these have been included with each annexation package, ATTACHMENTS 3 through 6. All four annexations represented here comprise 63 parcels totaling 47.34 acres. As indicated in the staff report to City Council, the proposed annexations meet the applicable standards. Pursuant to Chapter 18.320.020.,C of the r Tigard Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan designation and the City's zoning is automatically applied to property upon approval of the annexation by Council. OTHERALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny the annexation request, approve annexation of only some `of the parcels, or include, additional "island" parcels into the annexation proposal. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY. , Growth and Management Goal #2: Urban Services are provided to all- citizens within Tigard's urban growth boundary'and recipients of services pay their share. . ATTACHMENT LIST 1'. Testimony Received After Close of the Public Record During 7-day Written Comment Period 1. Email from Mark Padgett, received August 16, 2005. 2: Fax from Sean Foushee, applicant for Mt. View Estates, received August 15, 2005. 3. Letter from Alpha Community Development, applicant for Wilson Ridge, received August 16, 2005. 4. Letter from Tom Weber, applicant for Arlington Heights 3; received August 16, 2005. .5. Email from Julie Russell, received August 16, 2005 6.. Letter from LaVelle and Marie Day, received August 16, 2005 7. Email from Jackie and Gary Kisling, received August 16, 2005 8. Letter from Henry Kane,'received August 16, 2005 9. Email from Jim Wolf, dated 8/16/05 10. Email from Bill Dickinson, dated 8/16/05 11. Email from Lisa Hamilton-Treick, dated 8/16/05 12. Email from Phil Decker, dated 8/16/05 2. Response from Staff to Questions Raised During 8/9/05 Hearing. 3. ZCA 2004-00004 (Mountain View Estates Annexation Package) Staff Report to the City Council Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222 City Attorney Findings in Response to Comments "Draft" City Council Ordinance Exhibit A: Legal Description' Exhibit B:.Tax Map Exhibit C: Vicinity Map. 4. ZCA 2005-00001. (Arlington Heights 3 Annexation Package) Staff Report to the City Council Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222 . City Attorney Findings in Response to Comments "Draft" City Council Ordinance Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Tax Map Exhibit C: Vicinity Map 5. ZCA 2005-00002 (Wilson Ridge Annexation Package) Staff Report to the City'Council Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222 City Attorney Findings in Response to Comments "Draft" City. Council Ordinance Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Tax Map Exhibit C: Vicinity Map 6. ZCA 2005-00001 (Alberta Rider Summit Ridge Annexation Package) Staff Report to the City Council Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222 City Attorney Findings in Response to Comments "Draft',' City Council Ordinance Exhibit A: REVISED Legal Description Exhibit. B: REVISED Tax Map Exhibit C: Vicinity Map FISCAL NOTES There is no direct fiscal impact resulting from annexing the properties. Costs associated with provision of city services will be. offset by the collection of SDC's at time of development. _ ATTACHMENT ZCA2004-00004 Mountain View Estates Annexation ZCA2005-00001 Arlington Heights.3 Annexation ZCA2005=00002 Wilson Ridge Annexation, ZCA2005-00003 Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge Annexation Testimony Received After Close of the Public Record During 7-day Written Comment Period Deadline for Additional Written Testimony: 5:00 p.m., August 16, 2005 1. Email from Mark Padgett, received August 16., 2005. 2. Fax from Sean Foushee, applicant for Mt. View Estates, received, August 15', 2005. 3. Letter from Alpha Community Development, applicant, for Wilson Ridge, received August 16, 2005. 4. Letter from Tom Weber, applicant for Arlington Heights 3, received August 16; 2005. 5. Email from Julie Russell, received August 16, 2005. '6. Letter from Lavelle and. Marie Day, received August 16, 2005 7. Email from Jackie and Gary Kisling, received August 16, 2005 8. Letter from Henry Kane, received. August 16, 2005 9. Email from Jim Wolf, dated 8/16/05 , 10. Email from Bill Dickinson, dated 8/16/05 11. Email from Lisa Hamilton-Treick, dated 8/16/05 12. Email from Phil Decker, dated 8/16/05 f Cath Wheatle from Mark Pad ett re. annexation _ -Page 1 From: "Mark Padgett" <mark@padgett.net> To: . <cathy@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/16/2005 9:08:50 AM Subject: from Mark Padgett re: annexation ' Cathy - please add this email'to the written'record that was held open until. today (Aug: 16, 2005). Thank you. Councilors - as I have listened to the people from the unincorporated area of Bull Mountain testify,.one underlying theme has been running through. their statements. They seem to think that you have the same level of obligation to represent their wishes as you do for City of Tigard residents. This is just not the case. We all know that the annexation issue is really one of.taxing equity for the people of our-city. Allowing even more property to'develop outside the City when.the property will be occupied by' more people who will be using most-of the City's resources at the same level of City residents is just not: in the best' interests of our'residents and adds to this taxing inequity. Perhaps the. best illustration of this came in the testimony of one Bull' Mountain resident (as quoted in last week'.s Tigard Times) that he is "already using the Tigard library and parks". This is exactly the point. implore. you -to first and foremost keep in mind the:best interests of the citizens of Tigard. You are not an elected body from anywhere, else. If the Bull Mountain residents want you to represent their interests at the same . . level of those of Tigard residents, then they should annex. Until then,let them find their recourse from their chosen government, the,Board of County Commissioners. That's their choice. " must tell you I certainly am not the only citizen of Tigard who would . resent subsidizing the eventual residents of even more property. 1 hope you agree with me that you should,annex this property,and all other property that presents itself in the same manner. Let's do what's best for the citizens you truly represent. Please note I am writing this as a private citizen and not as a _ representative of the Planning Commission. Thank you. Mark Padgett voice 503.590.5226 fax 503.590.5227 cell 503.997. MARK . email mark@padgett.net 71 Feb,• 9, .1996 6:42AM No•0200 P..1/2 ACCENT •RESIDENTIAL'HOMES o2 12"583. SW AUTUMNVIE1W, ST. TIGARD OR -9.7224 (50.3) 6.70-493,9 PAX (503•) .670-493.8 m~-n~rweecvm r - . FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: r•R_ OM!, . Mox'gan Tracy Accent Residential Homes COMPANY: DATEt City of Tigard 8/15/05 FAX NUMBER, TOTAL NO, OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 503-684-7297 " 2 PkIONL' NUMI3kIt: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: 503-670-4939 RL: YOUR REFERENCE'.NUMBE'R: Voluntary Annexation- Mt. View Estates ❑ URGJ~,.Nt CI FOR x VIEW O PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY _ " ❑ PLEASE- RLCY(.LL' Please let me know if you (require anytkiijag futthelr fiona us- Thank you, Angel Sully Accent Residential Homes, Inc.':' ; 503-670-4939' 503_914M9482 cell ; 9 , 1996 6.42AM 1 aZ Feb , A RES4DEN71AL ViOMES .A.ugust 15, 2005 , lV~ozg Tracy, ,A.ssoci~te T?].aaane~' . - . City of Tigard .13125 SW "I'll Blvd: Tigard OR 97223 at 12415 SW $eef Fiend " Tracy n tkae pr Tigard. es is volunt,'ly alxlexi g o f Tigard. , city ,A,ccwt Tesidential Hom opxent, into the. Rd, th, Mountain View Rstates'devel Sincerely, ' Sean.Foushee „ president es' Inc ; p,er►t Residential Y1o1x~ . > 3 . -al pha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 15, 2005 RECEIVED PLANNING Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner AUG ,1 6 2005 City of Tigard 13125 Hall Blvd. CITY OF TIGARD Tigard, OR 97223 Re: ZCA 2005-00002 ORD 05-11 Dear Mr. Tracy, Pursuant to the comments raised at the August 9, 2005 meeting of Tigard City Council, please note the following with regard to the proposed annexation of the Wilson'Ridge subdivision: . • It.is the applicant's assertion, which can be readily verified by the mmap at right; 'thdt the proposed annexation of the Wilson Ridge subdivision does not create an' "island" or { A irregular City boundary. Instead, the proposed annexation is effectively a southerly extension of City limits formed by the Three Mountains Estates - subdivision located due north across SW Bull Mountain Road. Additionally, the Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal without z objection, and has not made any comment with regard to difficulty of service delivery or J confusion of response. • With regard to citizens' testimony suggesting that consent to annex was coerced in some fashion; we would like to state for the record, as we testified before E Council, that there was no pressure whatsoever to consent and that it is our wish C3 that the subdivision be located within City limits. Lisa Hamilton's fesfimony included reference to a request or. deal in 'principle to remove thepanhandle`'`portion of the site from annexation. Alpfla Community Development wishes to make clear that the portion of.land :in question is part of the:southwestemhhiost lot and not a right-of-way or easement. Further, we have no knowledge of such a deal or discussions to that effect w'ith' Washington County or City of Tigard officials, or any other such body. 3 N:\ProA99WazU?hYvStr,0\j0(48 rWmrRm1oklEp 97223 [T] 503-452-8003 [F] 503-452-8043 • In her testimony, Ms. Hamilton also questioned the density of the proposed 14-lot Wilson Ridge subdivision, stating that it may be incompatible with neighboring properties/developments in that it is too dense. Please note that as applicant, Alpha Community Development designed the subdivision.to comply with City of Tigard R-7 zoning, which governs this site within the Urban Service Area. Even if Washington County R-6 (6 units/acre) zoning had been in effect, the resulting subdivision would have contained the same number of lots/units. Density calculations are as follows- City of Tigard R-7 Washington County R-6 gross area 116,630 sq. ft. gross area 116,630 sq. ft. - right of way 31,824 sq. ft. = 2.68 acre - private street 6,758 sq. ft. x 6 units = net area 78,105 sq. ft. = 16 lots / 5,000 sq. ft. = 15 lots max. x 0.80 = 12 lots min. Being that Section 300-2.1 of the Washington County code states that "Site size shall include the area of the subject lot(s) or parcel(s), in acres or portions thereof, excluding all areas'cuffently dedicated for public right-of-way," R-6 density is calculated from the gross site, not the net. Therefore, it is the applicant's assertion that the density of the subdivision proposed under Tigard zoning is similar to that under Washington County, if not less. Thank you for your attention to this application and our written comments. Please do not hesitate to contact either project manager, Jeff Vanderdasson, or me at (503) 452-8003 with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, ALPHA COMMUNITY ELGRMENT John Marquart Staff II Planner cc: Al Jeck, Alpha Community Development N:\proj\999-229\Word\additiona1 annex letter.doc 'fir ..z lrt.. C. I, ' - 5 .i ,1 - '1 : . rr l j. r ti` „ '•4,' TERRA WEBER LL - - 11 ~ . 1. . . , L r ' r ~ Property Development f ' .4 t:. ~ .i , ±r. i•> , ti, , .August 15, 2005 i' r ! :h , r e j V Ti ' ard'' Cit ' Courici l ' ,Tigard C1t-I " ,.j 1 # teal rENG 'IMEEI, N ' :131'25' SWHaII Blvd: r`: J tr , L ~f t. t '.r l . '4 . V : G.:'. t,=,;, E _ :b' , -'Tigar'd; OR' 97223 ' z . , . f t µ : ; _ T J Re:-Zone:Chahge%Annexation;(ZCA)_2005=00001 4 v :a :D `ear'Councilors; ~ ~ i.- ,rt A, 7, Wer;are the:Owrier/Develo ers o -Arlin on'=He1 hts`:No:,3 tfiat'is bein 'con'sidered' for'.'' rr P. $ g ar: • annezatiori info the Crt `of'Ti `ar:'It was decided°at'the ` ulil c.hearin" field on Au st;9 f° ,;<.`t sto keep the record •operi ford 7'days in ;order, to receive additional infoi maton: To that end _ I would`'like`to offer the following points` ~t 1~ ;4: I f: T ;.f T: <;1 ' We the'Pro , , t ,'inS `uestion`andJityis our desire~to-be'annexed to the Cit. } `1 'of Tigard:: . r e, r. <e, .N e . p, - w, ^ t• , Syr 4 2 Whether the:City requires-annexatioil:o , not T ;choose to.lie:anheked in'orderto .:x. " receive the.benefit' of being `a`.•residen "f the:City f " ° , 3 We ;have not been: . ,F' coerced by,the Crty;to.aniieX We are.involved-in other y. _•f- roecfs tfiat are not' conti ous to the`;Cit % lire rts~bi of they- did i ifir'~ "I P J. _ i y :4 ^ Y.. i ''c` ='would :voluritanlY;annex ' 7 , ` s ;i ' °t' . Y 4 a..' I believe the City has everYnght`to re ulre annexation if.CitY'services are 111 Y , 9 , extended to accommodate,developnient. This:`is an accepted pracfice"in other r , Iuris'dictions , .d : ti'' r„ 5 .'The `.`'Frien'ds of Bul1,1V1ourifain' ' do.not;represent me or an lone f know: The` A , Y,: Y F.: seem to demarid,all;ofthe be ne fits f rom,the Cit liut''dona.want , f o •a th bill:: ' Y. P Y- e ' That hardly, seems fair, and-in fact I believe thatanyone who is riot'a:resident: r -11 . 10' Of thel Cit `:does'; not'have 'a' Standin mfthese': 'roceedin "s a` %i. , : A ain; as the Owners of.the sub ect.Pro e I pr `e outo';a rove this annexation h,, :r re uest"without:dela `i sr` q. X ,,tr i r ; r, ' '.j • , l i 7•. Y,... ..7 Ve ,t, , - o urs' ~ fry, Y Y., t . 4 t:,1 :i u i J o er.s a t Y .Terra-,Weber- LLCM;` , _ , f : _ 4 t i `t t ; L l t x .Y t t r\, r r t. T Y i t C.1 , 7 I', r - ' y ' 'r', f J~ . - F , 1t r 1 t' f 3 ,y j _ _ :t: ,1 1. t 1 't^.y',. 1.• 'f::', II , vL r,t,, J !S C.• .i ,5'. 12755 ' -H five Suite 1OO ;Portland OR.97223~ ;Office '503 51'7:8284 Fax:^ 503.601:3524 ; f c is < ; J t i H , a, .b' t•.a _ _ ..1 ^r , , , •i._. ti . L5 _ -1- Page 1 of 1' council mail councilmail -'Annexation Testimony From: "Julie Russell" <jarussell59@comcast.net> To: <cathy@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Craig Dirksen" <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Nick Wilson" <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Sydney Sherwood" <sydney@i.tigard.or.us>, 'Tom Woodruff' <tomw@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/16/2005 11:58 AM Subject: Annexation Testimony Dear Cathy, Please submit my written'testimony regarding the annexation of the four properties on the, agenda last week. My testimony is attached. Best Regards,' Julie Russell file:k:\Documents and Settings\naricy\Local Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 8/16/2005 August 16; 2005 Julie Russell 12662 SW Terraview Dr Tigard, OR., 97,224 Dear Mayor-and Council Members; I am submitting, my written testimonyto oppose the-annexation of the four properties (Mountain View Estates, ,Arlington Heights 3, Wilson Ridge and Alberta Rider/ Summit Ridge.) I testified against this annexation -on August 9, 2005 and. request that my written testimony be made part of the public record. ` I would have hoped that the council would have considered the defeat of the Bull Mountain annexation vote in Nov. of 2004. ~ Where 89% of the residents of the mountain clearly stated that they did not want to be annexed to Tigard. It is quite clear from your aggressive strategy that Tigard intends to proceed by forcing builders to annex by denying building permits, unless they agree to annex. It is also quite clear that you intend to create irregular -boundaries and islands; thus taking away property, owner's right to vote on annexation decisions. This•is abusive and.bad public policy. The Oregon legislature did pass some laws this.session to change annexation policy. HB 2484 guarantees a dual majority vote, and. SB 88T prevents: island annexation for at least two years. I think Tigard.needs to be careful to follow the intent of these laws that have been passed and "will continue to be passed to protect the rights of residents to choose whom will govern them.. ' I disagree with.Tigard's assumption in the Comprehensive Plan Policy 2:1.1. The city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement,program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process., Tigard doesn't have or recognize any Neighborhood Planning Organizations in the unincorporated area, (Urban Service Area), and Tigard has admitted they'do not recognize CP04B. CP04B is the Citizen Participation Organization for Bull Mountain and parts of Tigard. Tigard has openly stated they will not send city staff to CP04B meetings and do not acknowledge the`CPOs as they are organized by Washington County. As a result, unincorporated Bull Mountain residents have no recognition in community organizations in the city. Tigard limits the involvement of unincorporated Bull Mountain residents on committees in Tigard, and refuses to appoint those residents to various committees, such as the budget committee. I believe this violates the policy. Also Tigard does not involve citizens in the pre-application meetings, unlike Lake Oswego. Tigard did not notify every property owner in Arlington,Heights 1 and 2 regarding this hearing. Those property owners could be affected if this annexation passes, as they will,'become an island, and could be annexed without a vote. I dispute Tigard's findings in Policy 10.1:2: Tigard admits that none.of these annexations eliminate an existing "pocket". or "island" of unincorporated territory..Tigard-states that. these annexations will not create an irregular bound" . This-proposed annexation will definitely create irregular boundaries and difficulties for service, providers to know if the property is inside or outside of city limits. The Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge proposal states that it is addressing a. situation where parcels fall in and outside of city limits. Their formation is the result of disjointed annexation and plat approval timing. This was due to the annexation in Dec. 2004 that again created irregular, inconsistent' boundaries. The Tigard Code 10.1.2 specially states the requirement a. The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated: territory, or b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency, situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside of city limits'. These four nnexations do not comply with either of-these.requirements. The Washington County annexations` Sheriff's Department did not have the opportunity to comment on these annexation requests and the affect on the service•of the area, and the affect of the withdrawal of those properties from the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District. I dispute CDC Section 18.320.020. This area has been identified as severely park deficient by Washington County in the Bull Mountain Community Plan in 1983, and the City of Tigard. There are no solutions for sufficient capacity to remedy the lack of parks. Annexation to Tigard, by allowing additional homes with no identified parks or open space only increases this deficiency. Tigard has a goal of providing 11. acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, but currently only has'8 acres per 1,000 residents. These annexations only create more of,a park deficiency for Tigard. I also dispute the fact that the roads and transportation plan can handle the additional capacity created by these subdivisions. Bull Mountain Road and'Beef Bend Road are the only access points to,-. . Hwy 99, which is at or near capacity at,every intersection through Tigard per OD,OT. Additional building permits only make the already overloaded 14ighway.99 worse. These subdivisions also give access to collectors and aterials of Beef Bend Road and Bull Mountain Road, which the Washington County code and transportation plans say few access points should be granted. I dispute the timing and assignments of the zoning designations as they completely ignore the Bull Mountain Community Plan zoning, which still identifies the slopes and summit as being. low density, not medium density, and the zoning per the Bull Mountain Community Plan is still R-6, or 6 lots per acre not 7. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. So why : was, Summit Ridge allowed to build at R-7 designations, when it was not annexed.to -Tigard and still under Washington County zoning of R-6? I dispute the fact that all residents were notified of the proposal to annex parts of Bull. Mountain Road and Beef Bend Road. This is not clear on the vicinity map. Which roads, or parts of roads are actually being annexed? Who was notified? All surrounding residents and affected property owners? When did parts of Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend Road become city streets? The Washington County Transportation Plan still identifies them as county streets. I do not know of any residents or Citizen Participation Organizations being advised that any roads in the area have experienced a change in jurisdiction. What about the residents east of SW 133`d? This could create an island for all of those property owners. What comments were received by the Washington County, Sheriff's department and other service providers, about these irregular boundaries and islands? i Who will service those areas, and how will this confusing patchwork of boundaries be serviced? I dispute Metro 3:09 conclusions. The proposed annexation will interfere with the timely, orderly and economic provisions of public facilities and services. Public facilities and services are provided by various service districts and do not require annexation, in order' to continue those services. I oppose the annexation file of Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge Annexation. Alberta.Rider is a public school and. should not be required to annex to Tigard prior to receiving a final building pennit. I believe again this is very bad public policy and quite probably illegal. The only thing to be gained by requiring Alberta Rider Elementary School to annex is the surrounding of neighboring property, and the creation of islands to continue the aggressive annexation policy of Tigard. Also the property owner Alberta Rider did not consent to annex to Tigard. Alberta Rider and Summit Ridge should not be processed in the same annexation, one is owned by the Tigar&Tualatin School District and the other is a private developer. I oppose the Summit Ridge annexation', as Arbor Summit and Summit Ridge were not bordering city limits, when they were annexed in Dec. of 2004: I also dispute the statement that a double majority method was used for one of the parcels of Summit Ridge, Venture Properties is not an elector in the area, but simply the developer, so how did that election take place, and how can the future residents be held accountable to this hostile annexation? I disagree with the statement that some of the property in Arbor Summit and Summit Ridge wereinside -the city and some outside of the city. None of this property was, inside of the city prior to the development of the property and annexation in Dec. 2004. I oppose the, annexation of the Arlington Heights 3 subdivision on the grounds that they are annexing to the Arlington Heights Homeowners Association and are'part of the Arlington Heights Neighborhood: Arlington Heights 1 and 2 are not annexed to Tigard and were approved under county land use regulations in 1997. I don't believe Tigard.can legally annex only one portion of a subdivision. Respectfully, Julie Russell f RECEIVED C.O.T AUG 16 2005 August 15, 2005 Administration City Council /0(07 177 Tigard, Oregon Re: Annexation of approximately 47 acres on Bull Mountain v Dear Mayor Dirksen and City Council Members, We understand that the record is being held open until August 16, 2005. We are submitting these comments and request that they be made a part of the public record on this matter. It is very obvious that the City of Tigard is trying to strategically annex land in a manner to prevent the citizens of unincorporated Bull Mountain from considering annexation to King City as an alternative to annexing to Tigard. This would also cause problems for considering the option of incorporating as a new city. It is still the same of pressure tactics that Tigard has used during the past number of years and it is very tiring. However, it has made us absolutely more determined to help the Friends of Bull Mountain to challenge this and any other tactic that the City of Tigard comes up with to hamper an orderly, considered approach to what would be best for the unincorporated area of Bull Mountain. We think it is unconscionable that the City of Tigard has put such great pressure on developers to get their testimony in support of the annexation. From the developer who testified, his testimony stated the following facts: 1. That the developer has several projects going on in Tigard. 2. That his Bull Mountain project is being held up because of this annexation proposal. He stated that he hoped a decision would not be delayed, otherwise he would "lose the current season". 3. That he lived in an apartment in Tigard, not a condo or town house or separate home. That suggests that it is not a permanent arrangement, even though he can say with all sincerity that he is a resident of Tigard. As a developer with multiple projects going on in the City of Tigard that doesn't fit the normal developer's life style. Within the scope of discretion that the City of Tigard can legally enforce when working with developers, this developer's life could be made "much easier", if he sides with the City. If he were to object or to remain neutral, his life could be made "hellish". Can anyone prove these statements? The answer is no! But it fits the pattern of the city with this proposed annexation, with the one vote group position of the City on the previous election (until public pressure caused a change), with the required signing of statements requiring an unincorporated residents to sign to get services, which state they will not contest annexation and with other such tactics exercised by the City. An understanding person could ask the question, "What other position could this developer take than to support this annexation?" The answer is simple, "NONE". The city has forced him into this position. We find it difficult to believe that he would willingly on his own initiative ask to be annexed to the city with it costing him considerable delay and money. He is already concerned about "losing the season". He is a business man. He wouldn't make that kind of decision. The city has forced him into this position. Without the developer's support, you have no annexation. Annexation was turned down by the voters, which we support. We are opposed to this annexation and intend to pursue every legal means to stop it. Unfortunately this developer is caught in the middle and will be hurt the most. It is unfortunate that the City has placed him in this position. Lavelle & Marie Day 7 .7.2 Page 1 of 1 7. . council mail councilmail - Bull Mountain Annexation From: "Jackie & Gary Kisling'Home <garykisling@coincast.net>. To: <craigd@c.tigard.or.us> Date:, 8/16/2005 3:52 PM ! ~ . Subject;, Bull Mountain Annexation . Mayor Oirksen and Council Members; We wish to oppose the annexation of the` four properties designated by the Tigard City Council, as Well 'as all other remainingunincorporated properties on Bull Mountain that were-not designated... We live in Mountain Gate. We voted against annexation in Nov. of 2004. You should remember that 90%' of the voters said "No. This was followed by HB2484 and HB2722.' These'laws are-toiprotect.the residents of the affected properties. w Your approach has been and `continues 'to,be that'of a hostile takeover. We know that Tigard has a big budget problem that would be'resolved_ by higher taxes :imposed bn unincorporated Bull Mo'unt' ain ',residents.. Yqur approach continues to be aggressive and.. without respect for'the wishes. and legafyights, of the resident's. You hold. a very, important position in"*city government., .'You should be a, good listener, 'a skilled long range planner,` and have the ability and, know-how to.negotiate'for a. compromise that leaves all, sides committed. If you can'.t4hink of any,:way to"negotiated compromise with Bull Mountain residents you need help from those, of us in, unincorporated Bull. Mountain!, Jackie &,Gary,Kisling 14485 SW Peachtree Dr. .Tigard, OR 97224' ; 503=590-5753 r file:HCADocuments and Settings\nancy\Local, Settings\Temp\GW}000OLHTM 8/16/2005 . g RECEIVED C.O.T. Henry Kane 12077 SW Camden Lane AUG 16 2005 Beaverton, Oregon 97008 503.643-4054 Administration HAND-DELIVERED 3~ (lam August 16,.2005 Mayor and Councilors Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re Objection to forced annexation of unincorporated territory in reliance on forced annexation provision of ORS 222.750 on ground forced annexation violates Oregon Constitution, Article 11, 1 and.2 Mayor Dirksen and Councilors: Attached to this letter are pages 11-15 of a Court of Appeals brief stating in substance that the Oregon Constitution forbids the legislature to enact a law purporting to forbid a qualified voter to vote. In addition to the cases cited in the attachment, see Livesley v. Litchfield, 47 Or 248- 49, 88 Pacific142, headnote 3 (1905): "3. The provisions of Salem charter * * * prohibiting any person from voting at any election of said city who has not paid a road poll tax for the year in which he offers to vote, unless exempt as otherwise in said charter provided, is void as in conflict with Const. Or. Art. 11, § 2, prescribing the qualifications of electors at all elections not otherwise provided by said constitution." (emphasis added) ORS 222.750 "island annexations" without allowing residents andproperty owners to vote on whether they wish to be annexed also violates the Equal Protection of the Laws and Due Process of Law Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Please consider this letter formal notice that if the City of Tigard attempts to annex unincorporated territory in reliance on ORS 222.750 without allowing a vote, the undersigned will offer oral and -written testimony opposing forced annexation, and will pe I a orced annexation order to the Land Use Court of Appeals. n K Eri - - 11 o paragraph) We phasize again what Chief Justice Waite said in Munn v. lllino 94 U. S. 113, 134, `For protection against abuses by legislat es the people must resort to the polls, not to the courts."' (em asis added) Neither the Board r the city has cited any appellate court d ision rejecting a constitutional challe a to a right to vote statute w' a holding stating in substance that "the people must r ort to the polls,. n to the courts." Id. There is a fundamental distinction b ee a constitutional right to vote and the right to engage in a calling or profe ion. Restrictions or denial of the ri to vote is subs t to strict scrutiny. In contrast, casenotes 1 of Meadows v. Odom, 36 Supp.2d 811 (M.D.La: 2005) held: 11. T right to pursue the `common occupations of life' i a protect liberty interest, subject to reasonable limitations." "2. State legislatures may choose which industries, professions, occupations require regulation and to what degree they should be regulated within each industry, profession, or occupation, without violating the Egual Protection Clause." (emphasis added) FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Respondent's denial of the right to vote in reliance- on ORS 222.750 violates sections 1 and 2 of Article 11 of the Oregon Constitution. Argument Preservation of Error Respondent's adherence to the state and federal constitution in the appeal at bar is jurisdictional, hence a constitutional issue may be raised for the first time on appeal. 12 Respondent forcibly annexed the unincorporated territories at issue without allowing residents and property owners to vote on whether they supported annexation, in reliance on the following "without the consent" option of ORS 222.750: " * * * annexation by a city under this section shall be by ordinance or resolution, subject to referendum, with or without the consent of any owner of property within the territory or. resident in the territory." (emphasis added) Oregon Constitution, Article II, section 1, provides: "All elections shall be free and equal." Oregon Constitution, Article 11, section 2 provides in relevant part: "(1) Every citizen of the United States is entitled to vote in all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution if such citizen: "(a) Is 18 years of age or older; "(b) Has resided in this state during the six months immediately preceding the election * * * and; "(c) Is registered not less than 20. calendar days immediately preceding any election in the manner provided by, law. "(2) Except as otherwise provided in section 6, Article Vlll of this Constitution with respect to the qualifications of voters in all school district elections, provision may be made by law to require that persons who vote upon questions of levying special taxes or issuing public bonds shall be taxpayers." (emphasis added) State v, Campbell/Campf/Collins, 265 Or 82, 88, 506 P2d 773, 314 132d 912 (1973) cited with approval an earlier election law case for the following rule: "'Such legislation, however, must be reasonable, not curtailing the right or placing any undue burden upon its exercise': Nor may it `hamper or render ineffective the power reserved by the people': * * (emphasis added) The Court held at 265 Or 88-89: However, not every legislative provision which tends to prevent fraud is necessarily valid. In Woodward v. Barbur, 59 13 Or 70, 116 P 101 (1911) and in State ex rel Fleck v. Dalles City, 72 Or 337, 3460347, 143 P 1127 (1914) it was held that municipal ordinances which restricted the right to sign petitions, to registered voters were invalid because in conflict with the constitutional provision extending the right of initiative to the legal voters of municipalities * * (emphasis added) The case note of State ex rel Chapman v. Appling, 220 Or 41, 348 P.2d 759 (1960) summarized the case: * * * The Supreme Court, Lusk, J., held that the constitutional amendment providing that members of legislature shall receive for their services a salary of $600 per annum gives the legislature no power to enact statute increasing compensation for services to $175 per month." The Court held at 220 Or 70: "We hold, therefore, that ORS 171.071 is unconstitutional and void. * * State ex rel Chapman, supra, held at 220 Or 50: " * * * A provision of the charter of the City of Portland which, prohibited a person from voting in a municipal election who has not paid a road poll tax was in conflict with Section 2 of Article II of the constitution of this state, which prescribes the qualifications of voters of this state. It will be observed that the qualifications of voters are in affirmative, mandatory terms. The court said: "'The provision is by its terms expressly made applicable to all elections not otherwise provided by the constitution. * * Peterkort v. County Zoning District, 211 Or 188, 195, 313 P2d 773, 314 P2d 912 (1957) held:. - " * * * Article II, § 2, is unambiquous and its meaning clear and not open to construction. "Our conclusion is that ORS 215.269 is unconstitutional as in conflict with Art II, § 2, of the Oregon Constitution, the election held pursuant to that statute was void, and the 3 "2 At the time these cases were decided, a citizen was not required to be registered in order to be a legal voter. Registration is now a constitutional requirement. Section 2." 14 purported county zoning district has no validity..* * (emphasis added) Veatch v. Cottage Grove, 133 Or 144, 145, 289 P2d 494 (1930) held: " * * * the legislature can not pass an act in contravention of the constitution. The language quoted from said section 2 is plain and simple, and the legislature is without the power to limit voters to taxpayers where the charter of the city is involved * * (emphasis added) The Court held at 133 Or 146 that the legislature, by statute, ''cannot "prevent non-taxpaying citizens from voting:" "There is no pretense that the hundred non-taxpaying voters were disqualified in any other way than that they did not pay taxes. There is no claim that the election attacked in this action is `otherwise provided for by this constitution." (no paragraph) Said article II, section 2, as amended says `every citizen of the United States.' That language is broad enough to include non- taxpaying citizens and. the legislature has not the power to prevent non-taxpaying citizens from voting." (Emphasis by Court) Loe v. Britting, 132 Or 572, 578, 287 P 74 (1930) held in rejecting denial to vote on a bond issue: * * "The right to vote in this case, conferred by the constitution, is a political right which attaches to every qualified voter seeking to cast his ballot at a general or special election and a statute which denies that right is unconstitutional because denying an existing right. * * (emphasis added) The Court held that a statute limiting the right to vote on a bond issue in the bond issuing district is unconstitutional as denying the right to vote. Ladd v. Holmes, 40 Or 167, 178, 66 P 714 (1901) held: "Article II, § 1, provides that all. elections shall be free and equal. To be free means that the voter shall be left in the untrammeled exercise, whether by civil or military authority, of his right and privilege; that is to say, no impediment or restraint of any character shall be imposed upon him, either directly or indirectly, whereby he shall be hindered or prevented from 15 participation at the polls * * (emphasis added) The city's responsive brief may claim there is no Oregon constitutional right to vote on annexation. The record is silent on whether either appellate court considered Oregon Constitution, Article II, sections 1 and 2. However, Oregon Constitution, Article II, 1 and 2, prevail when there is a conflict between the right to vote in general and the city's claim of no Oregon constitutional right to vote on annexation. Therefore, the Board erred in affirming constitutionality of ORS 222.750. SIXTH ASSIGNMENT. OF ERROR The'appealed LUBA Order must be remanded because Respondent's Comprehensive Plan lacks annexation riteria and Respondent did not rule on whether the annexation complied with tatewide Goals. A ument Preservation of Error App 2. to this brief is page 2 of a pellant Kane's December 17, 2005 post- hearing written testimony. It is identified as "00084" of Respondent's record submission to LUBA. The last paragrap of App. 2 preserves Respondent's error: "Beaverton violated (ORS 197.175(1) because the city did not consider Land Use and evelopment (LCDC) statewide development goals." Cape v. City of Beaverton, 187 Or App 463, 470, 683 P3d 261 (2003) held: "Reduced to its simplest terms, the fact that the city's plan does not address the anne tion of this property means that under OAR 660-001-0310 he annexation cannot be considered to be in compliance ith the goals. (no paragraph) The result of that lack of com lia ice is that the annexation is subject to the goals." (emphasis added) Morgan Tracy - Police Services For'Proposed Annexation Areas Page 1 From: Jim Wolf To: Morgan Tracy Date- 8/16/2005 3:58:43 PM Subject: Police Services For Proposed Annexation Areas Morgan, At this time, Tigard Police has adequate resources.to provide police services to the areas that are being proposed for annexation into the City of Tigard. My information indicates the areas of discussion include Wilson Ridge, Mountain View Estates, Arlington Heights III and the Summit Ridge area including the Alberta Rider School. If you need any further clarification or comments, please contact me. Thank you. Jim Wolf Public Information Officer Tigard Police Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 503.718.2561 office/voice 503.795.2391 (pager) 503.718.2645 (fax) 503.519.6804(mobile) CC: Bill Dickinson I Morgan Tracy - annexation area Page 1_ From: Bill Dickinson To: Morgan Tracy Date: 8/16/2005 4:41:07 PM Subject: annexation area Morgan, As a supplement to Jim Wolfs response to you, I would point out. that.annexation and full development of these properties not only would be of minimal impact to Tigard Police, the new residents would enjoy a staffing level .which'is higher than.what they would receive if they were unincorporated area residents. The Tigard Police Department is much more impacted by current in-fill development inside the city limits than by this small annexation area. Hope this is helpful. Bill Dickinson, Chief Tigard PD j - _ w m Cathy Wheatley Written Testimony on Buli Mountain Annexations Page .1 From: "Lisa Hamilton-Treick" <Lisa@HamiltonRealtyGroup.com> ' To: "Cathy Wheatley" <CATHY@ci.tigard.or.us>' Date: 8/16/2005 4:55:44 PM Subject: Written Testimony on Bull Mountain Annexations Re: Annexation of Albert Rider Elementary School, Portions of Summit Ridge, Arlington Heights Ill, and Wilson Ridge Please add the following written comments, along with•the oral testimony of Lisa Hamilton-Treick on ' 8/9/2005, to the public record. We are commenting as public citizens and residents of unincorporated Washington.County. Mayor and Council Members, , We oppose the combined pubic hearing process for the above annexations as it causes undue hardship on residents who may wish to challenge the land use decisions under.a.LUBA appeal. It forces all four annexations to be addressed during the same 21 day deadline period and burdens the public with ' unnecessary expense. The decision to handle the public hearing for all four properties at the same time is acknowledged as "an experiment" by city staff: We oppose the creation of highly irregular boundaries and intentional formation of "islands" and "pockets" of unincorporated neighborhoods: This process significantly contributes to a confusing service boundary, especially as it relates to the three local and overlapping police/sheriffs service boundaries. This is in direct violation of Tigard's annexation codes and ordinances: It is done so with the admitted plan to eventually fill in and,align the boundaries, but with no.process or timeline as to how and when. that would, if ever, be accomplished. , We oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees collected in the Urban Services Area (per 2002 IGA) to Tigard's TIF accounts. Per the Tigard/Washington County IGA, the funds collected in the area defined by . the map are to be accounted for separated in the Urban Services TI F accounts. We oppose the use of -force to secure consent to annex in'exchange for building permits. When negotiating the sale of their property, it is common.practice for a buyer/builder/developer to require the seller to agree, as part of the purchase agreement, to sign any and all documents required by the city to allow the purchaser to- proceed with the pre-application and application process. If., as part of that process, the City of Tigard requires the buyer/builder/developer to consent to annex in exchange for building permits, the city will jeopardize the sale unless the seller consents. If property owners were acting on their own free will it is highly likely the number of consents would be closer to 8% to 10%, reflecting the results , of the November, 2004 election, rather than the"100%seller consent the city has stated. Thank you for giving our comments your serious consideration. Regards, Tom T.reick and Lisa Hamilton-Treick 13565 SW Beef Bend Rd. Unincorporated Bull Mountain Tigard, OR, 97224 CC:` <ttreick@comcast.net> " ~l Cathy Wheatley City Council Meetin 9, ~8/9/05: Objection to Annexation ofnFour Parcels,and each of them- Pa e 1 g From: "phil decker" <pd-law@comcast.net>, To: "Tigard Mayor,.City•Council" <council@ci.tigard.or.us> " Date: 8/16/2005 4:37:27 PM Subject: City, Council, Meeting, 8/9/05:.Objection to Annexation.of Four Parcels, and each of,them', Hon. Mayor and Council Members: I am'Philip E. Decker and reside at 14540 SW 148th Place, Tigard, OR 97224.. This communication is to OPPOSE and OBJECT to the annexation.to the parcels, and each of them individually (hereinafter collectively parcels'),' identified in Item 7 of the Tigard City Council Meeting, Agenda of August 9, 2005. Grounds for said opposition and objection include, without limit; the-following:. 1•._. 'Both the City of Tigard and said parcels are regulated by and subject to ORS 222.111, et seq, as to annexation of real property to the City of. Tigard; 2. Said parcels are not'contiguous' as required by ORS 222.111, et seq.; 3. ORS 222.115 (Annexation contracts) is ensconced entirely within the statutory framework,of ORS 222.111, et seq.,. which requires the parcel(s) be."contiguous to the city,"'and provides no exemption directly or indirectly to the overarching statutory:requirement that parcels proposed for annexation be contiguous to the city; 4.The requirement, by the City of Tigard that the:parcel owner(s) or,representative(s),consent in writing to annexation of 'said parcel(s) as,a condition•of issuance of necessary, building and related permits' by;the ' City of Tigard is unlawful, unauthorized by applicable Oregon, impermissibly coercive, an abuse of the police power of the,City of Tigard, a taking of property without due process of law and a conscious, intentional and, unlawful attempt to create "de facto annexations" tothe City of Tigard in order to avoid and circumvent. Oregon laws applicable to annexations 5.. Each of the subject parcels is.irregularly shaped;' annexation of any.of the subject parcels will create islands and pockets of annexed territory in violation of-law, including without Iimit,City of Tigard policy and ordinance; 6. The. irregularly shaped .parcels which are the`subject of the instant annexation proposal, or some, of them, are'proposed for annexation to recently 'annexed', parcels which were themselves annexed in violation of law,-including without limit City of7igard policy'and ordinance; by,virtue of their irregular shapes and,,resulting creation of impermissible islands and pockets.' Thank you. ; Philip E.. Decker ~ 1. - • • { MEMORANDUM TO: City Council . FROM: Jim Hendryz RE: Responses to Questions from August 9, 2005 Meeting DATE: August 16, 2005. . During the public hearings on annexations last Tuesday, several questions were asked by citizens. Attached are responses from staff (Attachment 1) and findings prepared by the City Attorney (Attachment 2). Some of the questions may be redundant, however all. questions have been answered. ,The City'received additional written testimony before the 5:00 p.m. deadline today. The responses and findings provided in the following pages addresses both the specific testimony raised at the meeting on August 9t and the subsequent submittals. h 1 Attachment 1 Annexation Responses from Staff In response to a number of questions that were raised at the August 9, 2005 City Council Hearing, staff has prepared the following responses: These are to be read in conjunction with the attached findings prepared by legal counsel. Charles Radley How appropriate are conditions of approval on development to require annexation? The City Attorney has prepared findings that address this issue. See attached findings section numbers 4 and 5. What is the nexus? Why does the landowner need to annex? The City Attorney has prepared findings that address this issue. See attached findings section number 11. Julie Russell .Why is this hearing being conducted differently? There are 4 annexations being processed concurrently. Instead of sending four sets.of notices to property owners resulting in duplication of some notices and some properties not being notified of the other annexation proposals, a combined notice and hearing process was instituted. This saved $132 in postage, resources in paper (382 notices versus.561), and staff time in preparing the notice. As for the conduct of the hearing, there is no difference. The applications are introduced and summarized by staff, and opportunities to comment on one or all applications is offered. Council will take separate actions on each annexation proposal: The intention was to make it easier for citizens to participate in the process. How does this affect the LUBA process? It doesn't. The same appeal procedures apply for each of the four separate applications.. Concerns about the conditional use permit. The conditional use permit was approved August 10, 2004 with a 10 day appeal period. The case was appealed by a private developer but the appeal was dropped before the hearing commenced. Therefore, the decision became legal and binding on August 24, 2004. Raising a claim of the validity of a condition at this time is invalid. The applicant has been aware of the requirement to annex since the preapplication conference was held for the school July 8, 2003. The school had numerous opportunities to challenge 1ACDADMUERRMAnnexation Responses from Staff.doc 1 Attachment 1 the requirement and chose not to. The standard practice is to require annexation prior to commencing construction, but in the interest'of facilitating the construction of the school, staff agreed to defer'the annexation requirement until final building inspection. Map seems incorrect. It shows Bull Mountain Road being annexed. The vicinity map included with the notice is not the official annexation- boundary map that is used to record the annexation. It is only intended to identify the affected parcels,.- and the generalized location of the proposed boundary change. This map is not sufficient to record an annexation with the Department of Revenue and other state and regional agencies. These agencies rely on tax assessor maps and legal descriptions, which are contained in each of the four annexation application files.', Portions of Bull Mountain Road will be. annexed. Beef Bend Road will not be a part of these. annexations. ..Disputes findings of Comp Plan #2.1.1 -"'that COT notified every property owner affected by the annexations..." Policy 2.1.1 requires that: The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen. involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The findings form the staff report state: "Interested parties. and surrounding property owners within 500 feet have been notified of the public hearing and notice of'the hearing has been published in a newspaper of general circulation. The site has been posted since June 23, 2005. There have been a number of opportunities for citizens to be involved in the decision making process, including the approval of the subdivision request." The City Attorney.has expounded on this issue in the attached findings, number. 112... Disputes findings of Policy 1.2- these annexations create irregular boundaries and create islands. Council in the past has said they'would not annex to create islands. We'assume that it is policy 10.1.2 that is being disputed: This policy requires: "approval of proposed annexations.of land by the City shall be based on findings with respect to the following: the annexation eliminates an'existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated territory; or the annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police'in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within . or outside the City; the police department has commented upon the annexation; the land is located within the Tigard urban planning area~and is contiguous. to the City boundary; the annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(a)." 1ACDADMWERREEWnnexation Responses from Staff.doc 2 Attachment 1 There is nothing in this policy that prevents the creation, of:islands, only that elimination of islands is encouraged. The council's statement, regarding islands is misrepresented: the City will not annex rights of way simply to create islands for later annexation. This is generally referred to as cherry stem annexations. That is not what is occurring here. There are distinct parcels being annexed and the rights of.way,that have been included are immediately fronting the annexed parcel. There is nothing to prevent Tigard from annexing up to the centerline of Beef Bend Road along Mountain View Estates and Arlington Heights 3, but to remain consistent with the previous annexation of Bella Vista, this right of way was excluded. . Any incremental annexation of parcels will have a boundary that is not "square" but that does. not make them irregular. The annexation boundaries either incorporate the entire parcel (making police response easy to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City) or excludes a particular address (as in the case of Mrs. Rider. Nevertheless, with the intergovernmental agreement for police services, both the county and the City Will respond to incidents in the Bull Mountain area, depending on who is closest to the incident at the time. The City Attorney has expounded on this issue in the attached findings, number 9. Disputes 18.320.020. identified as a very park deficient area. More homes will increase the deficiency. Also, 99W is already at capacity - additional building will overload that. The identified services are water,'sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection. Park deficiencies are not required to be considered with annexations. Also; 99W is not at capacity. Tigard's TSP shows that there are no roads at service levels of F (failing). It is projected that by 2015 without constructing certain mitigating facilities and improvements, portions of 99W will reach unacceptable levels of service. This is not the case now and -a model, projection cannot be used, as a basis to reject an annexation request that roadway capacity is not (or someday Will not be) available. Was Washington County Sheriffs office notified? What are their comments? All notices of annexation are sent to the Washington County Department of Land Use -and Transportation. No comments were received. Bull Mt. Community Plan identifies Bull Mountain area as R-6. How was Summit .Ridge developed at R-7 prior to annexation? -Ordinance 487, adopted, by the Washington County Board of Supervisors on September 9, 1996 applied the most equivalent zoning designation to the R-6 areas (not all parts of Bull Mountain are identified as R-6 in the plan). The R-7 zone is the most equivalent City designation'per the table identified in the ordinance (and repeated in the Development Code section 18.320) I:\CDADM\J ERREE\Annexation'Responses from Staff.doc 3 Attachment 1 Why was Alberta Rider and Summit Ridge annexed together? Unlike the other three annexation requests, these two annexations..were initiated by the City utilizing consent forms. Since they are contiguous areas, the two were combined into one application. They could have been separated, but this would have served no purpose, other than making .additional work (creating another casefile, generating another staff report). How can Arlington Heights #3 annex into our homeowner's association and not have a double majority vote like the property owners who already live in that subdivision? This is not a function of local government, and the procedure for adding lots into an HOA is an entirely separate, process. The HOA is a private legal entity bound by the covenants that apply to the properties within a subdivision. Whether or not other lots can be added to an HOA and the process for doing such should be spelled out in the bylaws for the association. Scott Miller . Why doesn't the City.get.the message about annexing-Bull Mountain? Does the City of Tigard have a plan to continue to annex on Bull Mountain? The City has had a long term policy that unincorporated areas within the City's area of interest (Bull Mountain, Metzger, etc.) should ultimately be served by the City. This was established with the adoption of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan in 1983 and acknowledged by Washington County through a series of intergovernmental agreements. County 2000, Washington County's Strategic Plan, recognizes that cities are the best providers on municipal levels of urban services. County 2010, an update of County 2000, continues this policy direction. Based upon the policy direction that has been in place since the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Tigard continues its policy.of annexation. Annexation requests are received throughout the year. In light of City and County policy, the City Council placed an annexation ballot on the November-2004 election. This ballot asked the voters of the City as well as voters of unincorporated Bull Mountain whether unincorporated Bull Mountain should be annexed into the City all at once. While the annexation of unincorporated Bull Mountain was'not supported by 88.62% (4,199) of.the voters in unincorporated Bull Mountain, a 64.7,1% (13,294) majority of Tigard voters supported the. annexation. Tigard voters support annexation of unincorporated Bull Mountai.n. . 1ACDADWERREE\Annexation Responses from Staff.doc 4 Attachment 1 What do any of us on Bull Mountain get for our tax dollars? The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, Bull Mountain Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report, and the Bull Mountain Annexation Study answer that question. Copies are available. at the Tigard Public Library and on the City's web page - www.ci.tigard.or.us. Bull Mountain does not have parks yet qualifies for one. Will the City of Tigard provide one? Tigard's Parks Master Plan identifies existing and future park needs for the City's entire area of interest, including unincorporated Bull Mountain. The.City is formalizing criteria for park purchases, including areas outside the current City limits. It should be noted that the City, along with Washington County, purchased approximately 12 acres outside the City limits for open space. How can owners give consent unless no option? .The.owners gave consent. The testimony by the owners was that consent was voluntary. Lisa Hamilton-Treik . What is the City taking in? Wants to see..current map of the unincorporated area of Bull. Mountain including all of Bull Mountain and Beef Bend Road that, demonstrate where the City's jurisdiction begins and ends. The annexation boundaries are clearly shown in the tax assessor's maps Which have been available in the application file since date of application. These maps-are now available on line at http://www.ci.tigard.or.us/city hall/city council/docs/packets/050809Packet.pdf A minor adjustment, in the proposed annexation area was introduced at the August 9th hearing to exclude Ms. Rider's life tenancy area. This map was made available at that hearing. The City's GIS (Geographic Information System) coordinator position has been vacant since January and, as a result, the present zoning and comprehensive plan map has not been able to be updated and is out of date. As such, it does not reflect the recent . annexation,of Alpine-View, Bella Vista, Arbor. Summit, and portions of Summit.Ridge. Updates to this map are scheduled to occur as soon as a new staff GIS person is hired., 1ACDADWERREEAnnexation Responses from Staff.doc 5 Attachment 1 Ken Henshel Cannot find in any of the. IGA's that gives City of Tigard authority.to force governments on an area as a precondition to approving building or occupancy permits. These annexations are unconstitutional takings as.they are coerced. The County and City IGA recognizes.that Tigard is the ultimate service provider of urban services in the Bull Mountain Planning Area. As. development of those parcels further intensifies the use and demand for those services, there is a rational nexus to require the properties to be included within the corporate limits of the City that provides and maintains those services. Since there is no, physical "taking" of property, that is. dedication of real property interests for public use that is required by bringing the property into the City limits, there is no'requirement to determine rough proportionality of the condition requiring the annexation.. I:\CDADM\JERREE\Annexation Responses from Staff.doc 6 Attachment 2 CITY ATTORNEY FINDINGS IN. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS At the August 9, 2005, the City Council received testimony from various persons regarding four proposed annexations. The Council allowed all parties until August 16 to submit additional written information. This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. Issues Raised By More Than One Person HB 2484 J 1. Some people testified that House Bill 2484 (which has been enacted into law) either prevents the City from approving these annexations'or demonstrates a legislative intent that a vote is required. in the area to be annexed. House Bill 2484 is a very simple bill. It amends ORS 195.215, to make it clear that annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195 must be approved both by a majority of voters in the territory to-be annexed and by a majority within the. City. L A. HB 2484 does not apply to, the annexations being considered by the City.because HB 2484 applies only to annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195, and the annexations before the City do not involve annexation plans or ORS Chapter 195. They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222, in particular ORS 222.125. HB 2484, even if it were effective, would not apply to, or affect these annexations. . . B. HB 2484 requires a separate vote in the area to be annexed for annexation plan annexations. However, requiring a vote in the-area to be annexed would be a meaningless and futile act for areas in which there are no registered voters. There are no registered voters in the area to be annexed in Mountain View Estates annexation (ZCA2004-00003) or in the Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge annexation area (ZCA2005-00003). All of the registered voters in 'the Arlington Heights 3. (ZCA20005-00001) and Wilson Ridge (ZCA 2005-00002) annexation have consented to annexation. HB 2722 2.. HB 2722 (which has been enacted into law) withdraws the-right of cities to veto formation of new cities. within three miles of their borders. Some opponents of annexation have argued that the intent- of this bill is that the wishes of citizens in the affected areas are respected. A. HB 2722 does not apply to annexations. B. The affected areas are the areas to be annexed. Two types of persons have 1 Attachment 2 interests in the affected areas - those who. own property and those who reside there. All owners of all properties to be annexed,'and all voters in areas to be annexed have consented to the annexation. No owner or resident in the areas to be annexed has indicated that they do not wish annexation. SB 877 3. SB 877 (which has been enacted into law) has three major effects. One is that it limits the ability of the City of Beaverton to annex "islands" of territory surrounded by that City. The second effect is that it requires a majority'vote in the territory to be annexed by means of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195. The third effect is'to prohibit the annexation of certain types of industrial property without the consent of the. owner. A. The provisions affecting only the City of Beaverton do not apply to the City of Tigard. B. None of the proposed annexations are "island" annexations, although an "island" is created by the Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge annexation. C. The annexations are not annexation plan annexations and are not subject to ORS Chapter 195. ' D: The, annexations are not of industrial land and are not the type of land that cannot' be annexed without the consent of the owner. The City'has the consent of all owners of all land being annexed. Voluntary or Coerced Consents ' 4. A few persons argued that the consents are not valid because they were coerced. A. None of the people who provided consents stated they were coerced. Those who testified that the consents were coerced did not specify which persons were coerced. Several persons representing property owners (Tom Weber, John Marquart, and Al Jeck) testified that consents were voluntary and not coerced. The City Council finds that there is no evidence thatany specific individual was coerced into consenting to annexation: If any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is likely that the person would have appeared at the hearing. The Council concludes that none of the consents were ' coerced. B. ORS 222.115 specifically authorizes contracts between a city and a landowner relating to the extraterritorial provision of service in which the landowner consents to annexation. The fact that.the City requires a consent-to annexation in 2 Attachment 2 return : fora contract for the extraterritorial provision of service'is explicitly authorized by statuteand -does not'constitute coercion. The City provides planning and'building inspection services extraterritorially and may require- consents .to annexation in order to provide those services: " C. ORS 222:175 recognizes that cities may solicit consents to annexation. The fact that a City seeks consents,does not. mean that they were coerced and does not invalidate the consents. Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use Proceeding 5., Some opponents have argued that some of the consents were required in connection with T land use proceedings, and the City cannot require' consents to annexation in order.to process a land.use application or as a condition of a land use approval. A. For consents that were provided in connection with a land use approval, the time to challenge the City's authority to impose the consents was during the land use process. In each case, the land use :process. has been completed and the appeal period has passed. The requirement to provide a consent to annexation can no. longer be challenged. . B. None of the.persons , who provided consents in connection. with land use -proceedings have in anyway challenged the consents or the requirement to provide the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified that they affirmatively desire that their properties be annexed to the City of Tigard. General.Concern For The Bull Mountain Area 6. Some opponents stated concerns. related to the Bull-Mountain area in-general and to their . property in unincorporated areas of 81111.Mountain. Some of them argues that the proposed annexations should not proceed because-of the negative vote when the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan was presented to the voters in the area to be annexed. A. The rights and interests of the owners and, registered voters in the areas proposed for annexation are recognized by statute. The statutes do not create a legally protected interest for.other persons. B. These annexations are different from the annexation plan presented to the voters. These annexations are property-specific annexations, under ORS Chapter 222. The City, and the annexation applicants are hot requesting approval of an annexation plan-. The rejection of an annexation plan,under ORS Chapter 195 does not prevent later annexation of specific territory under a different annexation statute. 3 Attachment 2 "Double Majority Vote 7. Some opponents of the,annexation argued that a "double majority" vote (a separately tabulated vote in the City and in the area to be annexed) is required. A. A "double majority" vote is or will be required for annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195. However, for annexations under ORS Chapter 222, votes in the City are not required unless required by City charter or ordinance, and votes in the area to be annexed are not required if certain criteria are met. A vote in .the area to be annexed is not required if all of the owners of all of the land and a majority of the electors in the area to be annexed, if any, consent to the annexation. ORS 222.125. The City Charter and Code do not require a vote within the City. B. As to each of the annexations, the City has received the consents of all of the owners of all of the land. The City has also received the consents of all of the registered voters in each area that has registered voters. These annexations are not annexation plan annexations under.ORS 195, so the double majority requirement does not apply. The City is not required to hold a vote in any of the territories to be annexed, either because there are no electors in the areas to be annexed or because the City has the consent of a,majority of the electors in those areas. "Islands" Of Unincorporated Areas Surrounded By The City 8. Some opponents argued that these annexations create islands of unincorporated areas surrounded by the City. They also note that the City may later annex those islands without consent of owners or electors. A. There.is no legal prohibition on'the creation of islands. The City must consider annexation applications that create islands under applicable standards... While. the Council must consider whether the borders created by an annexation are so irregular as. to potentially cause problems with the provision of police services, the police department accepts these boundaries as being acceptable and not causing confusion for the provision of police services. The Council finds that the boundaries are not irregular to the extent they create confusion in the provision of police services. B. The City does have the authority to annex islands, but is aware that the statutory authority to annex islands may be withdrawn„as it has been withdrawn from one other city and. from certain types of land. The possibility of a future annexation proceeding is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding whether to approve these annexations. 4• Attachment 2 Regular Boundaries 9. Several persons. commented that the annexations will not result in a regular boundary'. A. The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plan Policy. 10.1.2, which provides: Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City. shall be based on findings with respect to the following: a. The annexation eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island of unincorporated territory; or b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine.whether the parcel is within or outside the City;. c. The police department has commented on the annexation; d. The land is located within'the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is, contiguous to the City boundary; e.. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10'.1.1(a). B. Policy 10.1-.2 is complied with if either (1) subsection a or (2) subsections b through e are met. These annexations comply with subsections b through e. The annexation boundary will not make it difficult for the police in emergency . situations to determine whether the parcel is within or without the City. The police department has commented on the annexation and stated that it is capable . . of providing service. All areas proposed for annexation ate within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and are contiguous to the City. The services listed in 10.1.1(a) (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police and fire protection) can be provided to the areas to be annexed - the City and other responsible service providers have capacity to provide service to the areas to be annexed. Individual Comments Les and Ellen Godowski 10. The Godowskis argued that the annexations will also prevent certain areas from creating their own.cities,or annexing to King City. A. The City has no obligation to'refrain from annexing territory based on the 5 Attachment 2 possibility that some other city may be incorporated in the area at some point in the future. B: All applicable plans and intergovernmental agreements that address urbanization or the provision of urban services designate Tigard as the City that will annex and/or provide urban services. to the areas being. annexed. Charles Radlev 11. Charles Radley argued that the annexations would violate Dolan v. City of Tigard and that there is no "essential nexus." Mr. Radley also provided a written document. A. Dolan v.•City of Tigard applies only to cases in which the City exacts property from a property owner at the time of a land use approval. Dolan does not apply to annexations.. . B. To the extent the Mr. Radley is arguing that. the City could not require the property owners: to consent-to annexation -as a condition of land 'use approval, that challenge is too late. The land use approvals are final and cannot be collaterally challenged. Furthermore, Mr. Radley was not the applicant or a landowner in any of the land use cases and lacks standing to challenge conditions that have been accepted by the applicants. C. The "esstential nexus" requirement.is imposed on exactions by the Nollan v. California Coastal Commission case. Like Dolan, the case applies only to exactions at the time of land use approvals, not to annexations. To the extent that Mr. Radlev is challenging conditions of approval in the previous land use cases, that challenge is too late, and Mr. Radley lacks standing to make the challenge. D. The document that Mr. Radley provided is an excerpt discussing the requirement, under Rhode Island law, that a building official must issue a building permit that meets'the requirements of the building code. Rhode Island- law concerning building officials is not relevant to any 'issue regarding these annexations.. If Mr. Radley is attempting to argue that the City cannot require a consent to annexation, any requirement regarding consents to annexations by the'City are imposed in the context of a land use proceeding. The City has more'authority and more discretion in land use proceedings than in issuing building permits. Julie Russell 12. In addition to issues raised by others, Ms. Russell claimed that the map included with the notice of annexation was inaccurate"as to which areas are included within the City limits and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell argued that the City's process Attachment 2 violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1:1. and CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell stated dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning. A. The maps provided with the notice were accurate. They showed the location of the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within.the city limits by a shaded yellow area. There is no requirement to provide a map with the notice of the annexation hearing. Even if there was some inaccuracy, the maps provided sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed and their relationship to the City. B. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2. 1.1 provides: "The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program, and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is not an approval standard or criterion for an annexation application. The City's land use regulations have been acknowledged, and those regulations provide the process, including citizen involvement, for considering land use applications. That process includes notice and a. hearing, and the City provided notice and a hearing, as required by the CDC. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations, demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by the regulations: Citizens, including Ms. Russell, have had the opportunity to be involved in process. The process of necessity works differently in a quasi judicial land use process than in a legislative process. C. CDC 18.320.020 provides: 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards n A: Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a .Type. IV procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using standards of approval contained in Subsection B2 below. B. Approval Criteria. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to annex property to the City shall be based on the•following criteria: 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have -sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and 2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. C.• Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The Attachment 2 comprehensive plan designation and,the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation.. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City designations which are the most similar.. A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See . Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. D. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes-the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations to City designations which are most similar. The City used a Type IV approval process. The City has capacity to provide all required services to the area to be annexed, and the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, including those in Chapter 10, have been satisfied.. The properties being annexed already have City comprehensive plan and'zoning designations, that have been adopted and imposed by the County. Ms. Russell specifically argued that the City lacks parks capacity in the area. However, the City has sufficient parks capacity throughout the City to provide service to its residents, including residents in the areas being annexed. The services listed in the Comprehensive Plan,, water, sewer, storm sewer, streets, police and fire, protection, are the essential services that must be available, and those services will be available to the newly annexed.areas. Ms. Russell questioned the adequacy of the street system. The CityCouncil finds that the street system is adequate to provide service and will remain adequate: D. The areas to be annexed all have existing City zones that were established consistent with Table 320.1. The zoning.is consistent with the. Comprehensive Plan and applicable Community Development Code provisions. Scott Miller 13. In addition to issues addressed in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these findings, Mr. Miller stated a concern with an increase in taxes. Mr. Miller also argued that the consents received by the City are not consents. A. Mr. Miller does not own property being annexed. His property is outside, the area 8 Attachment' 2 proposed for annexation. His taxes will not increase as a result of the annexation. The property owners in the area to be annexed have consented to the annexation. Whether taxes may increase is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding an annexation. B. For each of the annexations, the City has either the written consent of the property owners or a petition from the property owners to initiate the annexation. All -are valid consents. Lisa Hamilton Treick 14. In addition to issues address in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section-of these findings, Ms. Hamilton Treik argued that Measure 37 gives property owners rights that are violated by these annexations. ; A., Ms..Hamilton Treik does not own.property that will'be annexed by these annexations. All owners of property being annexed have consented to these annexations: The property owners or their representatives who testified.expressly stated,that they voluntarily consent to the annexations. One of them,;Tom Weber, stated that he actively sought annexation to Tigard because of the value it brings to his property., Measure 37: is not an applicable standard,or criterion for annexation. 15. Ms. Hamilton Treik' also argued that the City has no. authority to condition land use approvals or acceptance of land use applications on a.consent to annexation. A. This is a challenge to final land use decisions that were not been appealed within the time allowed- by statute': Those decisions cannot be collaterally attacked. B. The various agreements with the County.and other urban service providers, . including the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement and Tigard Urban Service Agreement,. anticipate that the City will provide planning services and will ultimately annex Tigard's urban service area. Requiring annexation is not inconsistent-with those agreements. Urban Service Agreement Section I.D provides that the City shall endeavor`to annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed` for annexation. Requiring annexation consents effectuates this provision of the.Urban Service Agreement..-The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement gives Tigard all land use decision-making authority over the area to be annexed. Land use authority includes the authority to impose conditions. 9 ATTACHMENT 2 Annexation Responses from Staff In response to a number of questions that were raised.at the August 9,'2005 City Council Hearing, staff has prepared the following responses. These are to be read in conjunction with the attached findings prepared by legal counsel. Charles Radley. How appropriate are conditions of approval on development to require annexation? The City Attorney has prepared findings that address this issue. See attached findings section numbers 4 and 5. What is the nexus? Why does the landowner need to annex? The City Attorney has prepared findings that address this issue. See attached findings section number 11. Julie Russell. Why is this hearing being conducted differently?, There are 4 annexations being processed concurrently. Instead of sending four sets of notices to property owners resulting in duplication of some notices and some properties not being notified of the other annexation proposals, a combined notice and hearing process was instituted.. This saved $132 in postage, resources in paper (382 notices versus 561), and staff time in preparing the notice. As for the conduct of the hearing, there is no difference. The applications are introduced and summarized by staff, and opportunities to comment on one or all applications is offered. Council will take separate actions on each annexation proposal. The intention was, to make it easier for citizens to participate in the process. How does this affect the LUBA process? It doesn't. The same appeal procedures apply for each of the four separate applications. Concerns about the conditional use permit. The conditional use permit was approved August 1.0, 2004 with'a 10 day appeal period.t The case was'appealed by a private developer but the appeal was dropped before the hearing commenced. Therefore, the decision became legal and binding on August 24, 2004. Raising a claim of the validity of a condition at this time is invalid. The applicant has been aware of the requirement-to annex since the preapplication conference was held for the school July 8, 2003. The school had numerous opportunities to challenge the requirement and chose not to. The standard practice is:to require annexation,prior 1ACDADWERRMAnnexation Responses from Staff.doc 1 to commencing construction, but.in the interest of facilitating the construction of the school,.'staff agreed'to defer the annexation requirement until final building inspection. Map seems incorrect.' It shows.Bull Mountain. Road being annexed. The vicinity map. included with the.notice is not the official annexation boundarymap, that is used to record the annexation. It is'only intended toIdentify the'affected parcels, and the generalized location of the proposed boundary change. This map is not sufficient to record an annexation with.the Department of Revenue and other state and regional agencies. These agencies rely on tax assessor maps and legal descriptions, . . which are contained in each of the four annexation application files. Portions of Bull Mountain Road will, be annexed. Beef. Bend Road will not.be a part of, these annexations. Disputes findings of Comp Plan.#2.1.1 "that COT notified every property owner affected by the annexations..." Policy 2.1.1 requires that: The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and. shall assure that citizens. will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The findings from the staff report-state: "Interested' parties and surrounding property owners within 500 feet have been notified of the public hearing and notice of the hearing has. been published in a newspaper of general circulation.. The site has been posted 'since June 23, 2005. There have been a number of opportunities for citizens to be involved in the decision making process, including the approval of the subdivision request." The City Attorney has expounded on this issue,in the.attached .,findings, number.12. Disputes findings of Policy 1.2- these annexations create irregular boundaries and create islands. Council in, the past-has said they would not annex to create islands. We assume that it is policy 10:1.2 that. is. being disputed. This policy requires: "approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on findings with respect to the following: the annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or 'island`' of . unincorporated territory; or the annexation will. not create.an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency. situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City; the',police. department has commented upon the annexation; the land is. located within the Tigard urban planning area and is contiguous to the City boundary;.the annexation can be accommodated. by the services''listed in 10.1.1(a)." There is nothing in this policy that prevents the creation of. islands, only that elimination of islands ,is encouraged. The council's statement regarding islands, is misrepresented: .J`.\cDADM\JERREE\Annexation Responses from Staff.doc 2 the City will not annex rights of way simply to'create islands for later annexation. This, is generally referred to as cherry stem annexations. That is not what is occurring here., There are distinct parcels being annexed and the rights of way that have been included are immediately fronting the annexed parcel'. There is;nothing to prevent Tigard from : annexing up to the centerline of Beef Bend Road along Mountain View Estates and Arlington Heights 3, but to remain consistent with the previous annexation of Bella Vista, -this right of way was excluded. .Any incremental annexation of parcels will have a boundary that is not "square" but that does not make them irregular. The annexation boundaries either incorporate the entire parcel (making police response easy to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City) or excludes a particular address (as in•the case of Mrs. Rider. Nevertheless, with the intergovernmental agreement for police services, both the county and the City willrespond to incidents in the Bull Mountain area, depending on who is closest to the incident at the time. The' City Attorney has expounded on this issue in the attached findings., number 9.. Disputes 18:320.020: 'identified as a very park deficient area. More homes will increase the deficiency., Also, 99W is already` at capacity - additional building will overload that. The identified services are water, sewer,-drainage, streets, police, and fire protection. Park deficiencies are not required to be considered with annexations. Also, '99W is not at capacity. Tigard's TSP shows that there are no roads at service levels of F (failing). It is projected that by 2015 without constructing certain mitigating facilities and improvements, portions.of 99W will reach unacceptable levels of service. This is not the case now and a model projection cannot be,used as a basis to reject an annexation request that roadway capacity is not (or someday will not be) available. Was Washington County Sheriffs office notified? What are their comments? All notices of annexation are sent to the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation. No comments were received: Bull Mt..Community Plan identifies Bull Mountain area as R-6.- How was Summit Ridge developed at R-7 prior to annexation? Ordinance 487, adopted by the Washington County,Board of Supervisors on September 9, 1996 applied the most equivalent zoning designation to. the R-6 areas (not all parts of Bull. Mountain are identified as R-6 in the plan). The R-7 zone is the most equivalent City designation per the table identified in the ordinance (and repeated in the Development Code section 18.320) Why was'Alberta Rider and.Summit•Ridge annexed together? is\cbADM\JERREE\Annexation Responses from, Staff.doc 3 . Unlike the other three annexation requests, these two annexations were initiated by the City utilizing consent forms. Since they.are,contiguous areas, the two were combined . into one application: They could have been separated, but this would have served no purpose, other than making additional work (creating another casefile, generating another staff report). How can Arlington Heights #3 annex- into our homeowner's association and not have a double. majority vote like the property owners who already live, in'that subdivision? This is not a function of local government, and the procedure for adding lots into an HOA is an entirely separate process. The HOA is a private legal entity. bound by the covenants that apply to the. properties within a subdivision. Whether or not other lots can be added to an. HOA and the process for doing such should be spelled out in the bylaws for the association. Scott Miller . Why doesn't the City get the message'about-anneicing Bull Mountain? Does_ the City of Tigard have a plan to continue to annex-on. Bull Mountain? The City has had a long term policy.that unincorporated areas within the City's area of interest (Bull Mountain, Metzger, etc.) should ultimately be served by the City. This was established with the adoption of.Tigard's Comprehensive Plan in 1983 and acknowledged by Washington County through a series of intergovernmental agreements. County 2000, Washington County's Strategic Plan, recognizes that cities are the best providers.on municipal levels of urban services. County 2010, an update of County 2000, continues this policy direction. Based upon the policy direction that has been .in place since the adoption of the City's . Comprehensive Plan, Tigard continues its policy of annexation. Annexation requests are received throughout the year. In light of.City and County policy, the City Council placed an annexation ballot on the November 2004 election. This ballot asked the voters of the City as well as voters of unincorporated Bull Mountain whether unincorporated. Bull Mountain should be annexed into the City all at once. While the" annexation of unincorporated Bull Mountain was not supported by 88.62% (4,199) of the voters in unincorporated Bull Mountain, a 64.7.1% (13,294) majority of Tigard voters supported the annexation. Tigard voters support annexation of unincorporated Bull Mountain. What do any of us on Bull Mountainget,for our tax dollars? 1ACDADWERREBAnnexation Responses from Staff.doc 4 l , The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, Bull Mountain Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report, and.the Bull Mountain Annexation Study answer that question. Copies are available at the Tigard Public Library and on the City's web page www.ci.tigard.or.us. - Bull Mountain does not have parks yet qualifies for one. Will the City of Tigard provide one? Tigard's Parks Master Plan identifies existing and future park needs for the City's entire area of interest, including unincorporated Bull Mountain. The City is formalizing criteria for park purchases, including areas outside the current City limits. .It should be noted that the City, along with Washington County, purchased approximately 12 acres outside the City limits for open space. How can owners give consent unless no option? The owners gave consent. The testimony by the owners was that consent was voluntary. Lisa Hamilton-Treick What is the City taking in? Wants to see current map of the unincorporated. area of Bull Mountain including all of Bull Mountain and Beef Bend Road that demonstrate where the City's. jurisdiction begins. and ends. The annexation boundaries are clearly shown in the tax assessor's maps which have been available in the application file since date of application. These maps are now available on line at. http://www.ci.tigard.or.us/city hall/city council/docs/packets/050809Packet.pdf A minor adjustment in the proposed annexation area was introduced at the August 9th hearing to exclude Ms. Rider's life tenancy area. This map was made available at that hearing.. The City's GIS (Geographic Information System) coordinator position has been vacant since January and, as a result, the present zoning and comprehensive plan map has not been able to be updated and is out of date. As such, it does not.reflect the recent annexation of Alpine View, Bella Vista, Arbor Summit, and portions of Summit Ridge. . Updates to this map'are scheduled to occur as soon as a new staff GIS person is hired. I:\CDADM\JERREE\Annexation Responses from Staff.doc 5 Ken Henshel Cannot find in any of the IGA's that gives City of Tigard authority to force governments on an area as a precondition to approving building or occupancy permits. These annexations are unconstitutional takings as they are coerced. The County and City IGA recognizes that Tigard is the ultimate service provider of. urban services in the Bull Mountain Planning Area. ; As development of those parcels further intensifies the use and demand for those services, there is a rational nexus to require the properties to be included within the corporate limits of the City that provides and maintains those services. Since there is no physical "taking",of property, that is dedication of real property interests for public use that is required by bringing the property into the City limits, there is no requirement to determine rough proportionality of the condition requiring the. annexation. 1ACDADMWERREEAnnexation Responses from Staff.doc 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Agenda Item: Hearing Date: August 9.2005 7:30 PM `L i L` r .y i z ~T.~ i s ~ F RFP©R- TO •S'Y? aY yhr ft 'S\ONCJ. 1Y R. C(Tr OF TIGARD ~4 ~ T~ tz , ~ it 1 {fORST EflP 1 ARD~z 'REG. xu~ -77 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY " FILE NAME: MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION .CASE.NO.:. Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2004-00004 .AGENT: Lan. Pacific APPLICANT: Sean Foushee Attn: Brian Keefer Accent Homes 1001 SE Water Ave., #360. 12583 SW Autumnview St Portland, OR 97214. Tigard, OR 97223 OWNERS: Dwight C. and ,Karla Minthome Richard and, Diane M. Wright" " 12415 SW Beef Bend' Road ' 15350 SW Beef Bend Rd Tigard, OR 97224. Tigard, OR 97224 . PROPOSAL: The applicant applied for approval to subdivide property on Beef Bend Road, known as Mountain View Estates. The subdivision's .approval i included a condition'of approval requiring annexation. The applicant has applied for annexation of 6.94 acres. CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7, Medium Density Residential. EQUIVALENT CITY ZONING . DESIGNATION: R=7; Medium Density Residential. The, R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate- attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot• size of 102000 square feet. -Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some . civic and institutional uses are also -permitted. conditionally. LOCATION: 12415. SW Beef Bend Road, WCTM'2S110CB, Tax Lot 500. No Site Address, WCTM 2S110CB, Tax Lot 1.00. APPLICABLE REVIEW Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390; CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; and, ORS Chapter 222. STAFF REPORT TOTHE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OF 6 ZCA2W4-00004 - MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION 8/9/05 PUBLIC HEARING SECTION 11.. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ~~arrecorn>xnrends that the ;Counai ftrd that ttkroposed anr~exatron aNtIC nQ#dv 'w5~y f Ni~ `2 7 i6 _ h 1 3> z ~iyf VS~ue3 „~ae;~tther.~e~Ith,~ safe~and welfare Qf ~e City ° T~aetef'ore, staff re~~ntnetib¢s K ;~of#~~es~p,~exation by ad'optlor~ of tfe~ at#aehed~•ord~nancef t,, ~ SECTION 111. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Information.and Pro osal Description: an Pacific, representing Accent Homes applied for approval to subdivide property on Beef Bend Road, known as'Mountain. View Estates. A condition of that subdivision approval required annexation, prior to recording the final plat. 'Accordingly, the applicant applied for annexation of the two parcels that comprised the subdivision. The total area represented is, 6.94 acres and is contiguous to the present city limits along the northern property boundary. Vicinity Information: The subject pa ce s are located . north of SW Beef Bend Road, south of Thomwood subdivision,,and west of Turnagain Heights. SECTION DIV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The relevant. criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1; 10.1.1, 10.1.2, and; Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.320. Staff has determined that, the proposal is -:consistent with the relevant policies of the Comprehensive.Plan based on the following findings: Com rehensive Plan' o icy : e ity shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement`` program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an.opportunity to be involved in all phases . of the planning process. This Policy requires an ongoing . citizen involvement program. Interested parties and. surrounding property. owners within 500 feet have -been notified of the public hearing and notice of the hearing has been published -in a newspaper of general circulation. The site has been posted since June 23, 2005. There have. been a number of opportunities for citizens. to. be involved in the decision making process, including the approval of the subdivision request: Policy 10.1:1: The City shall review each of, the, following services as to adequate capacity, or such services to be made available, 'to serve the parcel if developed to the most intense use allowed, and will not significantly reduce the level of *services available. to developed and 'undeveloped land. within the City of Tigard. The services are: water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection. This policrequires adequate service capacity delivery to annexed parcels. The C' of Tigard Police, Engineering and Water Departments, NW Natural Gas, Tualatin Valleytire and Rescue, have all reviewed the annexation request and have offered no objections. The subject parcels are part of a -subdivision that was reviewed and approved based on; the availability of public services. Services to the subject parcels - have been addressed and conditioned within the review of the Mountain View Estates subdivision approval. This policy is satisfied. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL' PAGE 2'OF 6 ZCA2004-00004 -MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION 8/9105 PUBLIC HEARING If required .by an adopted capital improvements program ordinance, the applicant shall sign and record with ,Washington. .County a ..nonremonstrance agreement. regarding the following: The formation of a local improvement district (L.I.D.) for any of 'the following services that could be provided througgh such a district. The extension or.:improvement of the following: water, sewer, drainage and streets. The formation of a .special district for any of the above services or the .inclusion of -the. property into a special service district•for any of the above services. No L.I.D's were required. for the subject parcels' or subdivision approvals. All public infrastructure listed above have been conditioned to be constructed and the costs are to be . borne by the applicant. The City shall-provide urban services to areas within the Tigard urban planning-Area or with the urban growth boundary upon annexation. The City of Tigard has an urban, services agreement with Washington County for those areas within the City's urban.growth boundary. 'This policy has been complied with. Policy 10.1.2: approval of proposed annexations of land by the city shall be based on findinggs with respect to the following: the annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "isrand" of unincorporated territory; or the annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the policein an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the city; the police department has commented upon the .annexation; the land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is, contiguous 'to the city boundary; the annexation can' be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(a). This Policy pertains to boundary criteria for annexations. The proposed annexation will not eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated territory; however the annexation will -also not create an irregular boundary making it difficult for police to determine whether a particular parcel is in or outside.the city. The proposed annexation will incorporate the entire subdivision boundary for Mountain View Estates. The police .department has commented on the proposed annexation request and did not voice any ob'ections. The land is within the Urban Services Area inside the Urban Growth. Boundary an~ is bordered by, the city limits on 'the northern side.' Services to the subject property are addressed above. Tis policy is met. . Community_Development Code' Section Is ection • addresses approval standards for annexation proposa s: All services and facilities are available to.the area and have sufficient capacity, to provide service for the proposed annexation area; Adequate service (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection) capacity is available to serve the annexed parcels. The City of Tigard Police, Engineering and Water Departments, NW Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, have all reviewedthe annexation request. and have, offered, no ...objections. Additionally, the adequacy and availability of services was reviewed as part. of the Mountain View Estates subdivision . approval. Therefore, this policy is satisfied. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. Applicable Comprehensive Plan policies have been addressed above. Ordinance provisions . were addressed during the individual reviews of the Mountain View Estates subdivision. This standard. has been met. - STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 6 ZCA2004-00004 -MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION 8/9/05 PUBLIC HEARING Assi nment of comprehensive . Ian and zoning designations. The comprehensive pan designation an the zoning eslgna on placed on the prope shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or Coun 's comprehensive plan map . designati on. The assignment of these designa _sons shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation-. In the case of land which carries County designati ons, the City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map, and zoning. designations to the City designations which are the most similar. A zone, change is.required if'the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or/zoningg map designation other than the existing designations. - (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed -concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. The subject', property is in the Urban Service Area and is zoned R-7 medium dens'~ty residential, pursuant to the City of Tigard's Urban Services Intergovernmental Agg'reemenf. The R-7 zoning designation is consistent with the* original Washington County's R-6 Toning designation as shown in the table below. The City's zoning, was adopted by the County WE the City's. R-7 zoning district. Therefore; the propperty does not need to be rezoned upon annexation. According to Section 18.320.020.0, ttie City's Comprehensive plan and zoning designations occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning eslgna ons to City designations which are most similar. TABLE 320. CONVERSION TABLE. FOR COI:TNTV AND CITY PLAN AND ZONING DESIG'N'ATIONS Washington County Land Use City of Tigard Zoning City of Tigard Districts/Plan Designation Plan Designation R-5 Res. S unitVacre R-4.5 SFR 7,500 sq. ft Law density 1-5 units/acre R-6 Res. 6 units/acre R=7 SFR 5,000 sq_ ft Med. density 6-12 units/acre R-9 Res. '9 units/acre R-12 Multi-family 12.units/acre Med. density 6-12 units/acre R=12 Res. 12 units/acre R-12 Multi-family 12 units/acre Med. density 6-12 units/acre, R.45 Res. 15 units/acre R-25 Multi-family 25 units/acre Medium-High density 13-25 units/acre R-24 Res. 24 units/acres R-25 Multi-family 25 unitsfacre Medium-High density 13-25 un its/acre Office Commercial C-P Commercial 'Professional CP Commercial' Professional NC Neighborhood Commercial CN Neighborhood Commercial CN Neighborhood Commercial CBD Commercial Business CBD Commercial Business CBD Commercial Business District District District GC General Commercial CG General Commercial CG General Commercial IND. Industrial 1-L Light Industrial Light Industrial■ STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 4 OF 6 ZCA2004-000 - MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION 8/9/05 PUBLIC HEARING Metro W _ le o V_ 3.09 requires the additional standards to,be addressed. in annexation decisions; in addition to the local and state. review standards. These are addressed -and satisfied as discussed below: Consistency with the directly' applicable provisions in an urban- service provider agreement or annexation plan adopted. pursuant to ORS 195.065; The processing has . been done consistent with applicable . Urban Service Provider agreements. Consistency with directly applicable provisions. Of urban planning or other agreement, otherthan agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 995.065, between the affected entity and a necessaryparty; The process required. by the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Urban Planning Agreement for annexations. . Consistency, with specific directly applicable, standards or criteria for boundary changes contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans; This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, this criterion is satisfied. Consistency `with specific directly applicable standards or criteria'-for boundary changes contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans; Because the Development Code has been amended to, Comply. with applicable Metro functional plan requirements, by, complying with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is, consistent witth the applicable. Functional Plan and the -Regional Framework plan.. . Whether the proposed changes. will promote-or riot interfere with the timely, orderly and economic provisions of public facilities. and services;-. The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provision of public facilities or services because it is adjacent to existing city limits and services, and the delivery of those services was anticipated as part of the urban services agreement which is intended to promote the timely, orderly, and. economic delivery of public facilities and services. ` A f the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to.,, Metro, -a determination by Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be the primary criterion for approval; The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries. Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary change'in question under state and local law. . Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report., STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 5 OF 6 2CA2004-00004 - MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION 8/9105 PUBLIC HEARING SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS. Washington County Department Of Land Use & Transportation, Verizon, Qwest Communications, Northwest Natural Gas, 'Beaverton .School District #48,, Comcast Cable Corporation, Portland General Electric, .Metro, . Area Communications,, Cleanwater. Services, Metro Land Use'.& Planning, Tualatin Hills Park & Rec. District, Tualatin Valley Water District, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, and Tigard/Tualatin School District 23J have had the opportunity to review the proposal and have offered no objections. VA$E©O ~Ff ~1tVD1NGSl[CATEkflYEk PANNINGSAFEC~MAIE fl$ . Ilk - '~~'PR01/Ak} flF sZONEr =CftEtiNf~ ;ANNE'~1T143N~ ~'Z6A), ,20040D004'. MOUNTT~►iNr Y~'JEW ~~STA~ES A`NNE~1~[OI~f r ' ` Jul 28 2005 organ Tracf DATE Associate Planner Jul 28 ' 2005 BY: Ic ar Bewersdorff DATE Planning Manager STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 6 OF 6 ZCA2004-00004 - MOUNTAIN VIEW. ESTATES ANNEXATION 8/9/05 PUBLIC HEARING ; :SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS.. CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH'ORS CHAPTER 222. ZCA2004-00003 = Mountain View Estates The City is proceeding with this annexation without an election in 'the territory. to be annexed under ORS 222.125. That statute provides:'` The legislative body of a city need not. call or hold an election in the city or in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed or hold the hearing. otherwise required tinder. ORS 222.120 when all of the owners. of land in that territory and. not less than 50' percent of the electors, if any, residing in the lei rritory consent in writing to- the annexation of the land in the territoryand file a statement of iheir.consent with the legislative body. Upon receiving written consent to annexation by owners and electors under this section, the legislative body of the city, by resolution, or ordinance, may set the final boundaries of the area to' be annexed by a legal description' and proclaim the annexation. The Council, finds: 1. There is one owner of the two properties that are in the territoryproposed.for annexation under ZCA2004-00003.. The owner, has. consented in writing to annexation to the City of Tigard and those',consents have been duly filed with the . City. 2.. Accoiding to•County voter registration information,'there are no current registered voters residing in.the territory to be. annexed under ZCA2004-00003. - The City hadreceived signed consents to, annexation to the City. of Tigard from all four 'previous registered voters. 3. Because,the•City-has written consent of all owners of land and there are no currently registered voters in the-territory proposed to be annexed`under ZCA2004-00003, the City may proceed with annexation of that territory without,a vote'in the territory to be annexed, pursuant to ORS 222.125, because it has the " " . consent.of all owners andthere are no electors.' CITY ATTORNEY FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS At the August 9,.2005, the City Council received testimony, from various persons regarding our prop. osedannexations. The, Council allowed all parties until August 16 to submit additional written information.'. This document sets out the City's findings, on the legal and , factual issues raised-by the testimony and.written submissions. Issues Raised By More Than One'Person'' HB 2484 1. Some people testified that House'Brll 2484'(which has been enacted. into law) either' prevents the City from approving these annexations or demonstrates a legislative intent that a vote is required in the area to, be annexed. House Bill 2484 is, a very simple bill.. It amends ORS195.215'; to'make it'clear that annexation.plans under ORS Chapter 1,95 must be approved both by a majority of voters :in the territory.to be annexed and by a . majority within the City.' A." HB 2484 does not apply to' the annexations being-considered by the .City because HB 2484 applies only to annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195, and the annexations before the City do not involve annexation plans or ORS Chapter 195: They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222, in particular ORS 222,125. HB 2484, even if it were effective, would not apply to or affect these annexations. B. BB 2484.requires a separate vote in the area to. be annexed f6vannexation plan. annexations. However, requiring a vote in the area to be.arinexed would-be a• meaningless and futile act for areas*in which there are no registered voters. There are no registered voters in the area to be annexed.in Mountain View Estates annexation (ZCA2004-00003) or in the Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge'annexation area (ZCA2005-00003). All of the'registered voters'm the Arlington Heights 3 (ZCA20005-00001) and Wilson Ridge.(ZCA 2005-0.0002)•aiihexation have consented to annexation: ' HB 2722 2:. HB 2722 (which has been'enacted into law) withdraws the right of cities to veto formation of new cities within three miles of their borders. Some opponents, of annexation have argued that the intent of this bill is that the wishes.of citizens in the affected areas are respected. A. HB 2722 does"not apply to annexations. B. - . The affected areas are the, areas to be annexed.. Two types of persons have interests in the affected areas - those who own property and those who reside there. All owriers'of all properties to be annexed; and all voters in areas to be annexed have consented. to the annexation. No owner or resident in the areas to be annexed has indicated that they do not wish annexation: ; . • . SB 877 ; 3. SB,877 (which has been enacted into law) has three major effects. One is that it limits the ability of the City•of Beaverton to annex "Islands". of territory surrounded by,,that. City. The second effect is that it requires a majority vote in the territory to be, annexed by ' means 'of an annexation plan under ORS .Chapter 195, The third.effect- is to prohibit the annexation pf certain types of industrial propery 'without the consent of the owner.. A. The provisions affecting only the City of Beaverton do not apply to the City of Tigard. B. None of the proposed annexations are "island" annexations, although an "island" is :created by the Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge annexation. C. The annexations are not annexation plan annexations and are.not subject to'ORS Chapter 195, D. - The annexations are not of industrial, land. and, are not the type of land that cannot - be annexed without the consent of•the-owner. The-City has the consent of all owners of all land being annexed:, Voluntary or Coerced Consents 4. A few persons argued that the, consents are not valid because they.were coerced. A.' None, of 'the people who provided consents stated they were coerced. Those who - testified that the consents were coerced* did not-specify which persons :were coerced. Several persons representing property, owners. (Tom Weber; John. ` Marquari, and Al Jeck) testified that consents were voluntary and not coerced: The City Council finds that there is no evidence that. any specific individual was coerced into consenting to annexation. If any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is likely that the person would'have appeared at the hearing.. The Council concludes that none of the-consents were. coerced: B. ORS 222.115 specifically'authorizes contracts between a city' and a landowner.- relating to the extraterritorial provision of service, in;which the landowner consents to annexation. The fact that the City requires a- consent to annexation in return for a=.contract for the extraterritorial provision'of service is explicitly ' . authorized by statute and does not constitute 'coerciori. The City provides planning and building inspection service's extraterritorialty and may require consents to annexation in order to provide those services: 2 C.. ORS 222.175 recognizes that cities•may solicit-consents to annexation: The fact that a City seeks consents does not mean that-they were coerced and does not invalidate the consents. Consents To Annexation In-Connection With A"Land Use Proceeding 5. Some opponents have argued that some of the consents were required in connection with. land use proceedings, and'the City cannot require consents to annexation in order to process a land use application or as a.condition of a land use approval. ' A. For consents that were-provided- in. connection with a land use approval, the time : to challenge the'City's authority'to impose the consents was during the land use process. In each case, the land use process has been,completed and the appeal period has passed. The requirement to provide a consent to annexation•can no longer be challenged. B. None of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use proceedings have in any way challenged the'consents or the requirement to provide the .consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified:that Y they affirmatively desire,that their properties be annexed to the City of Tigard. General Concern For The Bull. Mountain Area 'e 6. Some opponents stated concerns related to the Bult Mountain area in general and to their property in unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain. Some of them argue that the proposed annexations should not proceed because of the negative vote when the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan'was presented to the voters in the area to be annexed. A. The rights and interests of the owners and registered voters in the areas proposed for annexation are recognized by statute: The statutes do not create a legally . protected interestTor other persons. B. These annexations are different from the annexation plan presented to the voters. These annexations are property-specific:annexatioins.under ORS Chapter 222... The City and the annexation applicants are.noi requesting. approval of an annexation plan.. The rejection of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195 does not prevent later annexation-of,specific territory under a different annexation, statute.. "Double Majority„ Vote 7.' Some opponents, of the annexation argued thata ,double majority."vote (a separately, tabulated vote.in the City-'and in the area to, be annexed) is required.' " A ``double majority" vote is or will. be required for annexation plans under ORS ' 3 Chapter 195. However, for annexations under ORS Chapter 222,-votes in the City are not required unless required by City charter'or ordinance, and votes in the area to be annexed are not required. if certain criteria are met. A vote in the area to be:. ' . annexed is not required if all of the owners of all of the land and a majority of the. . electors in .the area to be annexed, -if any,: consent to the annexation. ORS 222:125. The City Charter and Code do not•require• a vote within the City.' 'B. As to each of the annexations', the City has received the consents of all of the owners of all of the land. The City has also received.the consents of'all of the registered voters in each area that has registered voters. .These. annexations, are ' not annexation plan annexations under. ORS 195, so the double.majority' requirement does not apply.. The City is not required to hold a vote'in any of the. territories to be annexed, either because there are no electors in the areas to be annexed or because the City has the consent. of a majority of the electors in those areas. "Islands" Of UnincorporatedAreas Surrounded By The, Cily 8. Some opponents argued.that these, annexations. create islands of unincorporated areas : surrounded by the City. They also note.that the City may. later annex those islands- without.consent of owners or electors. A. There is no legal prohibition on the.creation of islands,. The City must consider annexation applications that create islands under applicable, standards. While the . Council must consider whether the borders created by an annexation are so irregular as to potentially cause problems with the provision of police services, the police. department accepts these boundaries as being acceptable and riot causing confusion for the provision.of police services. The police department has provided written, statements that they'can,provide services. The Council finds that the boundaries are not irregular.to the extent they create confusion in the provision of police, services: , .f. . B. The City does have:the authority to annex islands; but is awareiliat the statutory " authority to annex islands,may''be"withdrawn, as it has been withdrawn from one. other city and from certain types of land. The possibility of aTuture annexation proceeding is not'an..applicable standard or criterion in deciding whether to approve these annexations. Regular Boundaries 9. Several persons, commented that the annexations will not result in a regular boundary. A. The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plan Policy, 10.1.2, which provides:' Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on ; 4. • findings with respect to the -following:. . a. ' The, annexation. eliminate an existing "p'ocket',':or "island of unincorporated.territory; or b.. The annexation will'not create, an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for.the.police in an emergency situation to, determine whether the parcel is within or,ouiside the City " c. The' police department has commented on the annexation, d. The.land "is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is contiguous io'the City boundary; e. The annexation can be accommodated by "the services listed in 10:1.1( ' B.. Policy 10. 1.2 is complied with if either (1) subsection a or (2) subsections b through e are met.' These annexations comply with subsections b through e. , The annexation boundary, will not make it difficult for the police in emergency ; situations to determine whether'the parcel is;within or without the City. The police department has commented on the annexation and siatedthat it is capable of providing service. All areas proposed for annexation are withinthe. Tigard Urban Planning Area and are contiguous to the City. The services listed in 10. 1. 1 (a)'(water; sewer,'drainage, streets,,, police and.fire protection) can be provided to the areas'to be annexed = the City and other responsible service providers have capacity to pro vide.service;to the areas to be annexed.. Individual Comments Testimony at Hearin Les and Ellen Godowski 10. The Godowskis argued that the annexations will also prevent certain areas from creating' their own cities or. annexing to King City. A. The City has no obligation to refrain from annexing territory based on the possibility that some other. city.may be incorporated in the area at some point in, . the future. B. All applicable plans.'and intergovernmental agreements that address urbanization or, the provision of urban services designate Tigard as the City. that will annex and/or provide urban services to the. areas being annexed.:.. Charles Radlev : . -11... Charles Radlev argued that ihe.aimexations'would violate Dolan v.. City of Tigard and that there is`no.."essential nexus." Mr. Radley also provided a written document. ' A. Dolan v. City, of. Tigard applies only to cases in which the. City exacts property -from a property owner at the time of a land use approval.. Dolan does not-apply to . annexations: B. To the extent the Mr..Radley is arguing that the City could not require the property owners:to conserifto annexation.as a condition of land use approval, that ' challenge is too late. The land use approvals are final and cannot be collaterally challenged. Furthermore, Mr.: Radley was not the applicant or 'a landowner in any of the land use cases -and lacks standing to challenge conditions that have been . accepted by the applicants: C. The "esstential nexus" requirement is imposed on exactions by the Nollan v. California Coastal Commission case. 'Like Dolan, the case applies only to exactions at the time of land use approvals, not to annexations. To the extent that Mr. Radley is challenging conditions of approval in the previous-land use cases," that challenge is too late, and Mr. Radley lacks.standing to make the challenge. D. The document that Mr. Radley provided is an excerpt discussing the requitement; under Rhode Island law, that a building official,must issue a building permit that meets the requirements of the building code. Rhode Island law concerning building officials.is not relevant to any issue' regarding these annexations. 'If Mr. Radley is attempting to argue that the'City'cannot•require a consent to annexation, any requirement regarding consents to annexations by the City-are imposed in the context of a land use proceeding., The City has more authority arid more. discretion in- land use proceedings than in-issuing building permits. Julie Russell 12. In addition to issues raised by others, Ms. Russell claimed that the map included with the. notice of annexation was'. inaccurate. as to which areas are, included within the City limits. and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell argued that the City's process, violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1. and CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell stated dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning. A.- The maps provided with the notice were accurate.. They showed the location of the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by a shaded yellow area. There is no requirement to provide a map.with the notice of the annexation hearing. Even if there was some inaccuracy, the maps provided sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed and their relationship to the City. B. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2. 1.1 provides:- "The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to.be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is not an approval standard or criterion for ail annexation application.. The City's land use regulations have been acknowledged, and those regulations provide the process; including citizen involvement, for considering lan. use applications. That process includes notice and ahearing, and the City provided notice and a hearing, as required by the CDC. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by the regulations. Citizens, including Ms. Russell, have had the opportunity to be involved in process. The process of necessity works differently in a quasi-judicial land use process than in a legislative process.. C. CDC 18.320.020 provides: 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards A. Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a Type l-V procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390 using standards' of approval contained in Subsection B2 below. B. Approval Criteria. The decision to approve, approve with ; . modification, or deny an application to annex property to the City shall be based on the following, criteria:. 1. All services and'facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for. the proposed annexation area; and 2. The applicable'comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's'zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation: In the case of land which carries County- designations, the .City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City designations which:are the most similar. A zone change is required, if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. D. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations to City designations which' : are most similar. The City used a Type IV approval process.' The City. has capacity;to provide all required services to the area to be annexed, and the-applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, including those.in Chapter. 10, have been satisfied. The properties being anriexed already have City comprehensive plan and'zoning designations, that have been adopted and imposed-by the County. Ms. Russell specifically. argued that the Citylacks parks capacity in.the area. However; the City has sufficient parks capacity throughout the'Cityto,provide serviceto its ' residents, including'residents in the areas being annexed.. The services listed in the Comprehensive Plan, water; sewer, storm sewer, streets, police and fire, , protection, are the essential services that must be available, and those services will be. available to the newly, annexed areas. Ms. Russell questioned the adequacyof the street system. 'The City Council,finds that,the street system is adequate to. ' provide service and will remain adequate D. The areas to be annexed all have existing City 'zones that were established consistent with'Table 3201: The.zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Community Development Code provisions. Scott Miller 13. In addition to issues addressed in the ".Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these findings, Mr. Miller stated a concernwith an increase iri taxes. Mr. Miller also . argued that the consents received by the City are not consents: - A' Mr. Miller does not own property being annexed. His property is outside the-area 'proposed for annexation. His taxes will not increase as a result'of the annexation: The property owners in the area to be arinexed have conse'ied to the annexation: Whether taxes may increase is:not.an applicable standard or 'criterion in deciding an annexation. B. For each of the anriexations,'the City, has either the written consent of the property owners or a petition from the property owners to initiate the. annexation. All are 'valid consents. Lisa Hamilton Treick " 14.1 In addition to issues address in theJ "Issues Raised By' More Than One Person", section of these findings, Ms. Hamilton -Treick argued.that Measure 37 gives property.owners rights that are violated by these annexations: A. Ms. Hamilton°Treick does not own property that will be annexed;by these annexations. All owners of property being annexed have consented to these. 8' annexations. The property owners or their representatives who testified expressly stated that they voluntarily consent to the annexations. One of them, Tom Weber, stated that he actively sought annexation to Tigard because of the value it brings to his property. Measure 37 is not an applicable standard or criterion for annexation. 15. Ms. Hamilton Treick also argued that the City -has no authority to condition land use approvals or acceptance of land use applications on a consent to annexation. A. This is a challenge to final land use decisions that were not been appealed within the time allowed by statute. Those decisions cannot be collaterally attacked. = . B. The various,agreements with the County and other urban service providers, including the Urban Services Intergovernmental. Agreement and Tigard Urban Service Agreement, anticipate that the City will provide planning services and will ultimately annex Tigard's urban service area. Requiring annexation is not inconsistent with those agreements. Urban Service Agreement Section LD provides, that the. City shall endeavor to annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed for annexation. Requiring annexation consents effectuates this provision of the Urban Service Agreement. The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement gives Tigard.all land use decision-making authority, over the area to be annexed., Land use authority includes the authority to impose conditions. Individual' Comments - Post-Hearing Written Submissions Julie Russell 16. Ms. Russell again discussed general opposition to annexation in the Bult Mountain area, HB 2484, SB 887, Comprehensive Plan Policies Il.1.and-10.1.2, and CDC 18.320.020. The above findings address those arguments. ' 17. Ms. Russell also argues that the zoning is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull' Mountain Community Plan. The areas have all been rezoned by the County and the zoning being applied is the zoning required by CDC 18.320. Furthermore; as demonstrated in the written testimony of John Marquart, there is little or no practical difference between Washington County R-6 and Tigard R-7 zoning, as applied. • . 18. Ms. Russell argues that not everyone who was entitled to receive notice actually received notice. The City provided notice as required by applicable regulations. While it is possible that some persons did not receive notice, the City complies with the notice requirements. 19. Ms. Russell complains about possible effects on other service providers. The City has not received any negative comments from other service providers. All service providers 9, in the'area have- agreed,that the area being annexed will be annexed to Tigard. Services will be provided as agreed to in the Urban Services Agreements, entered into by the City and other service. providers. 20. Ms: Russell argues that the annexation will interfere with the orderly.and economic ` provision of public facilities and services. However, her argument appears to be that services can be provided without annexation. That does not mean that annexation will disrupt or interfere with service provision. The- agreements. between the service providers will ensure orderly and economic provision of services: . 21.' Ms Russell argues that the Alberta Rider School property-should not be annexed. None of her arguments relate to any applicable standard or criterion. 22. Ms. Russell opposes the Summit Ridge annexation as non-contiguous. The Summit Ridge' area being annexed will be contiguous with the City, on annexation. 23. Ms. Russell objects to the Annexation of Arlington Heights 3 .on.the grounds that the ' annexation will cause annexation to a homeowners-:association. That argument does not relate to any applicable standard or criterion. Participation in,a homeowner's-association is.asnatter of contract between the parties and unrelated to a City's authority to annex. Ms Russell also argues'that the City cannot annex only part of a subdivision. No. applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation-of part of a subdivision. Furthermore, Arlington Heights lis a separate subdivision from,Arlington Heights 1 and . 2. LaVelle and Marie Day 24. The Days object to the annexation on the grounds thafthe annexation may interfere with efforts to annex to King City or to create a new city. :.This argument does not'relate to any - applicable criterion or standard'. None'_of the Days' other arguments are. based on applicable standards or criteria:: Jackie'and Gary Kislin 25. The Kislings raise.issues related to HB,2484 and HB 2722.._ Those bills are addressed in the above' findings. . Henri, Kane 26. , Mr. Kan&'niakes arguments against island annexations..None of the-annexations are island annexations. Lisa Hamilton-Treick-and Tom Treick.., 27. Ms. Hamilton-Treick and Mr..Treick oppose the process in which the hearings on four'. 10 annexations were combined•as causing hardship on those who-wish to appeal. Even if the hearings had not been combined, the hearings could have been, and most likely would have been held at the same meeting. Therefore, the appeals would have all been due at the same time. Combining the hearings allowed people to state their objections a single time so as to avoid multiple repeated testimony. All persons were given a full opportunity to address any issues related to any of the four annexations.. 28. They also object to the boundaries as being irregular and question the voluntariness of the consents. These issues are addressed above. 29. They also,oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees,to Tigard's TIF accounts. That is not a relevant issue and does not relate to any applicable standard or criterion. Philip E. Decker 30. Mr. Decker opposes the. annexations as not being contiguous. No property being annexed will be, separated from the City by any intervening unincorporated'territory. The annexations are of contiguous property. 31. Mr. Decker argues'that'ORS 222:115 allows-annexation contracts only for contiguous parcels. ORS 222.115 does not require that property.be, contiguous at, the time an annexation. contract is signed. One purpose of ORS 222 is to allow properties that.are not contiguous to consent to'annexation so that they,can receive urban services immediately and be annexed later when intervening properties annex.. The contiguity requirement applies only when the annexation becomes effective. 32. Mr. Decker argues that the areas being annexed are irregularly shaped. The shape, of the area being annexed is not an issue. 33. Mr..Decker argues that previous annexations were improper. The.previous annexations are final and have not been challenged. They cannot be collaterally attacked at this time. Comments In Support .34. After the hearing,. the City received several written comments in support of the proposed annexations, including statements. from Sean Foushee, on behalf of the applicants for the Mountain View Estates, from John Marquart on behalf of the applicant for the Wilson Ridge annexation, and from Tom Weber,. on behalf of the owners of the Arlington Heights 3 property, all of whom stated that the annexation applications were'voluntary. Mr. Marquart and Mr. Weber addressed other issues, strongly supporting the annexations of their respective areas. ; G:\muni\Tigard\revisedannexationfindings081705.wpd ' t ATTACHMENT 4 Agenda Item: • ' Hearing Date: August 9, 2005 7:30 PM STAFF REPORT TOTHE CITY'000NCIL' ARD' FOR THE CITY OF T,I.GARD, OREGONn=tt~penr ' ~ Sit tprrt„~~.1 44lt IT017 tttu'tit'fy SECTION I.. -APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE, NAME ARLINGTON HEIGHTS 3 ANNEXATION CASE NO.: Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2005=00001 OWNERS: Matrix-Development Corp:. Richard And Betty Simerson : 12755 SW 60 Avenue, Ste #100 12455 SW Beef Bend Rd Tigard; OR 97223- Tigard, OR 97223 Walling, Roger/Jacqueline 12475 SW: Beef Bend'Road . Tigard; OR 97224 ; PROPOSAL! The applicant has ,applied for'annexation of; 16.97 acres 'into :the City of Tigard. CURRENT ZONING, DESIGNATION: R-7,.Medium Density Residential. EQUIVALENT CITY ZONING, -'DESIGNATION: R77, Medium Density Residential., Th&R-7 zoning district'is designed to. accommodate - attached . single-family homes; detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size " of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, 'at a 'minimum lot size of 10,000 . r• square feet.. Mobile. home parks and subdivisions are -also permitted outright. Some, civic: and institutional uses. are 'also' permitted conditionally:.... LOCATION WCTM2S109DA Tax Lot 2100;.and 2S110CB Tax Lots 600 and 700: APPLICABLE ' REVIEW CRITERIA: Community :-Development Code . Chapters' 18.320 and 18:390; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10;` Metro. Code Chapter 3.09; and ORS Chapter 222. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL " PAGE 1 OF 6 % 7-CA2005-00001 - ARLINGTOWHEIGHTS 3 ANNEXATION RtwnF P1 IRI Ir' WPAPIKIr_ . SECTION, 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Stan 'reco , m c!"F a e Coy n , iYf~nd th"af the proposed annexationuii~A nQad ensI ' aeetea1 afy we ar o,e C~ity. _Therefore, staff recornmyens~1`PP O ~r jnan SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Information and Proposal Descri tion: The app scan owner, Matrix Development, has applied, for subdivision review, but that application. has not completed its review at the. time of this re ort.. The subdivision is tentatively named Arlington Heights 3. A standard condition of approval for subdivision, proposals on property that borders City limits-within the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement area is that the property annex prior to final plat approval. There . is. no requirement that an applicant.or property owner wait until receiving land use approval to annex the property. A parcel thaf. is con iuous to the city limits may apply for.annexation at any time.. The total area represented in this. annexation request is 16.97 acres and is contiguous to the present city limits along the westem.property boundary., Vicinity Information: The subject parcels are located north of SW Beef Bend Road, south of Arlington Heights 1 and 2, and, east of Summit Ridge subdivision. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND .FINDINGS . The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Policies 2.1.1; 10.1.1, 10.1.2, and; Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.320. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: Comprehensive Plan Policy The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that.citizens.will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. This Policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement program. Interested parties and surrounding property owners within 500 feet have been notified of the. public hearing and notice of the hearing has been published in a newspaper of general circulation. The site, has, been posted since June 23, 2005. There have. been a number of opportunities for citizens. to be, involved in -the decision making process, including the approval of the. subdivision request. Policy 10..1.1: The City shall review each of the following services as to adequate capacity, or such services. to be. made available, to serve the parcel if developed -to the most intense use allowed, and will. not significantly 'reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. The, services are: water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, `and fire protection. . This policy requires adequate, service capacity delive to 'annexed parcels. The City of Tigard' Police, Engineering and Water Departments, Natural :Gas, Tualatin. Valley Fire and Rescue, have all reviewed . the annexation request and have offered no objections. While the subdivision request has. not completed its review, staff finds that there are three roads stubbed to the parcel, an 8° water line stubbed to the site, an 8° CWS sewer line along the east boundary, and drainage on the, site is presently provided by, two natural drainageways. Before the land is developed at its designated capacity. of 7 units to the STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 OF 6 M^C. AM. IwV'•TAwluonuTnn wwurt-vwTr... gross acre, the subdivision 'review will require 'that adeqquate facilities. are available and avized if necessary to handle the development. By.providing this infrastructure, the -site will he adequate service capacity.: This policy is satisfied... If required by an adopted capital. improvements program ordinance, the applicant .,shall ,sign and record with Washington .County,,a nonremonstrance agreement regarding.the following: The formation of a local improvement district (L.I.D.) for any Of the. following" services that could be .provided through such ;a ' district. , The extension or improvement of the following: water, sewer,, drainage and 'streets.' The formation of a special district for any of the 'above services or the inclusion of the property. into a special service district for any of the above services: No L:LD's have been required with the subject parcels"or subdivision approval. All public infrastructure listed above - will have to be completed before- the- land AS subdivided by a subdivision plat. 'The. costs of providing such,services will be-borne by the applicant.; Since, there are. no.capital, improvements. identified for this site,'no nonremonstrance agreement is necessary. The'City, shall, provide. urban services', to areas within the Tigard urban- planning'area' or with the urban growth boundary upon annexation: The ° City of Tigard - has an urban services agreement with' Washington _ County for those areas within the, City's urban growth -boundary. This policy has been complied with. . Policy 10.1.2• -approval of `proposed annexations of land by the city shall be based' on, findings with respect,to the following: the annexation eliminates- an. existing "pocket . or "island" of unincorporated territory;. or the annexation. will not create an irregular , boundary that makes itAiffcult for the police in an emergency situation,to determine, whether the parcel is within or outside, the citx'the police depart ment has commented " upon the annexation;, the land is located within-the Tigard urban planning area and is, contiguous to the cittyy boundary; the annexation can be accommodated by the, services listed in'10.1.'f(a). This Policy: pertains to boundary criteria for annexations. The proposed annexation, 'Will not, eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island" of:unincorporated territory; however the annexation will also not create an irregular-boundary making it difficult for police to determine whether b particular. parcel is in or outside. the-cit~..The pproposed annexation will incorporate the entire subdivision boundary for Arlington Heights Phase 3: All future lots within this pphase of the. subdivision will. be inside city Iimits.'The police department has commented on. the proposed annexation request and did not voice any objections. 'The land. is.within the Urban Services Area inside the Urban Growth- Boundary and is bordered by the city limits on the northern side.. Services to the subject property are addressed above. This. pricy is met. Community Development-Code, Section • T F s Section addresses , approval standards for annexation proposals: All services and, facilities : are - available to the area and have sufficient' capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; Adequate service (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire, rotection) capacity is available to serve-the annexed. parcels. The City of Tigard Police, Engineering and, Water . Departments,. NW Natural Gas; Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, have all reviewed the annexation -request and have offered no - objections. Additionally; 'the adequacy and- ' availability of* services to serve intended intended R-7' Medium Density residential development will be reviewed and conditioned 'as necessary as part of the Arlington Heights 3 subdivision review. .Therefore, this:policy is satisfied:. The applicable comprehensive :plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL' : PAGE 3 OF 6 ZCA2005-00001-ARLINGTON HEIGHTS .3 ANNEXATION mini Pi im irr, ucAnumr_ Applicable. Comprehensive Plan policies have been addressed above. The; implementing ordinance provisions of ORS 222, TCDC 18:390', and Metro Code 3.09: were followed, in, processing this annexation request.. Conformance with other-development: code provisions will be addressed at the time the property develops. .This standard has been met. Assi nment of comprehensive plan and zonin ' desi nations.'• The comprehensive pan designation an the zoning designation placed on e: prope shall be; the City's zoning:d.istrict which most:closely implements the City's or Coun 's comprehensive plan map. designation. The assignment . of these.'designa ions shall 'occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries. County .designations, th e Clty shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map o th and, zoning designatins to e City, designations which are the most similar. A zone change is required if -the applicant requests a; comprehensive plan map and/or/zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380):.. A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. The subject property is, in the Urban , Service Area and, is.-. zoned. R-7 medium density ; residential, pursuant to the City•of Tigard's-Urban•Services Intergovernmental,Agreement The R-7 zoning, designation is consistent with the original Washington County's R-6 zoning designation as shown in the table below. The City's zoning was adopted by:the County with the, City's R-7 zoning district when the Intergovernmental 'Agreement •was signed between th e county and the city to provide city planning services to this area: Therefore, the property d oes not need to be rezoned upon annexation. According to Section 18.320.020.C, the City's Comprehensive plan and zoning designations occur, automatically and concurrently' . with the annexation. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and . zoning esignafions to City designations which.are most similar. H lYjLl.. !GONV'FRS[Qi`I Tt(3LE EOl2 CQC~i`1T1' :IND t,'rf1` PLAN` r1\DLQAI[NG DESIGNATIONS I Ww hiugton County Land Use qty-of Tigard Zoning City of, TigatA ~Districts/P1an Designation Plan Designation R-5 Res. 5 units/acre R-4;5 SFR 7,501) sq. ft_ Low density I-5 units/acre R-6 Res. 6 umtslacrc R-7 SFRS,000 sq. ft. l~rt_cd, density 6-'.i2 unitslacre 9.Res. 9 unitsla4re R-'12 Multi-family 12 units/acre Med. density 0-12 units/acre - R-12 Rey. 12 units/acre R-1'12 Multi-f7unil}' 12 unity/acre I41ed, density 5-12 un ts/acrc R=15 lLes. 15 onitk`acre K-25 Multi-fitmily 25 units/aere Medium-High density-l3-25 units/acre R-24 Res.-24 units/acres 12-25 'Multi-family 25 unitsfacre Medium-High-density. 13-25 unitslacre Uffce Commercial C-P Commercial Professional CP Commercial Professional- NC Neighborhood Commercial CN Neighborhood Commercial CN Neighborhood Commercial C.BD Commercial Business CSR Commercial Business CBD Commercial Business District District District, GC; General Commercial CG General Commercial CG General Commercial IND Industrial 14, Light' Industrial Light tndustriaias STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 4 OF 6 ZCA2005-00001'- ARLINGTON HEIGHTS 3 ANNFXATI(1N oioi If, ucnoun Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be±addressed in annexation decisions, ' in addition to the local and state review standards. These are, addressed and satisfied as discussed below; Consistency with Elie directly applicable provisions. in an urban service provider ao ORS 195.065; agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant The processing has been done• consistent 'with applicable Urban Service 'Provider - agreements. Consistency with directly applicable provisions of 'urban planning or other agreement, . other than agreements. adopted pursuant to' ORS 195.065, between the- affected entity ' and a necessary party; The pprocess required' by the Development- Code ,and Comprehensive. Plan is consistent with the Urban Planning Agreement for'annexations. Consistency with specific directly applicable *standards or-criteria. for boundary, changes contained in comprehensive' land,use.plans and public facility plans; This has been discussedpreviously in this report,and, as discussed; this criterion is satisfied.. . . ,.Consistency with specific 'directly: applicable'- standards or criteria. for boundary.- changes contained in the Regional Framework Plan'or any`functionai plans; Because the Development .Code has been .'amended 'to comply with, applicable Metro functional plan requirements,: by comp)yi'n 'with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is consistent, with the applicable Functional Plan - and the .Regional Framework plan; Whether the. proposed changes, Will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly: and economic provisions of public facilities and services; The proposed ,annexation will. not interfere with _th' , proyision.. of public facilities or services because it is adjacent to.existing city' limits. and services, and the delivery of those services ' was anticipated as part. of,the urban services agreement which is intended to promote the. . timely; orderly, and economic delivery, of those public facilities and services. . of territory to Metro,... 4 If the proposed boundary' change is .for annexation'. determination by Metro Council that, the territory -should be included in the Urban Growth. Boundary'shall be the primarycriterion.for approval; The subject property is already within'the Metro boundaries.. Consistency' with other applicable criteria for the :boundary change in question under state and'local,law. ' Consistency with other applicabl&briteria'.has.been discussed'previously in this report.. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL, > PAGE 5 OF 6 ZCA2005-00001 -ARLINGTON HEIGHTS,3 ANNEXATION am/05 Pi iRi tr NFnRwr_ J . SECTION V. - AGENCY' COMMENTS Washington. County Department Of Land Use & Transportation, Verizon, : Qwest. "Communications, Northwest Natural Gas, Beaverton School District #48, Comcast Cable Corporation, Portland General Electric. Metro Area Communications, Cleanwater Services, Metro Land Use & Planning, Tualatin Hills Park Rec. District, Tualatin Valley Water District, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue,And Tigard/Tualatin School Distnct;23J have had the opportunity to review the proposal and have offered no-objections. itfft" ~EDON~iiE[N ~II~GSINDICA'ED.~VE;AIVNIAlG SST°A - 1 RQVAL Q ZOIVC ~4NGE ANNEXATIO '(=A) 2005=00001 ARL1N p n Jul 28 2005. PREPARED BY: Morgan racy DATE. Associate Planner July 28' 2005 BY: c Bewersdorff DATE Planning Manager STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 6 OF 6 ZCA2005-00001 - ARLINGTON HEIGHTS 3 ANNEXATION £319105 PI 1RI Ir HFARIIJr SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH ORS CHAPTER 222 ZCA2005-00001- Arlington Heights 3 The City is proceeding with this annexation without an election in, the territory to be annexed under ORS'222.125. That statute provides: The legislative body of a city need not call or hold an election in the city or in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed or hold the hearing otherwise required under ORS 222.120 when all of the owners. of land in that territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors, if any, residing in the territory consent in writing to the annexation of the land in the territory and file a.statement.of their consent with the legislative body.. Upon receiving. written consent to annexation by' owners and electors under this section, the legislative body of the city, by resolution or ordinance, may set the final boundaries of the area'to-be annexed by a:legal description and proclaim the annexation. The Council finds: i 1. There are five owners. of the three properties in the 'territory proposed for annexation under ZCA2005-00001.have consented in writing to annexation to the City of Tigard and those consents have been.duly filed with the City. 2. According to County voter registration information,- there are four registered voters residing in the territory to be annexed under ZCA2005=00001. The City has received signed consents to annexation to the City of Tigard from all four registered voters. Therefore, the City has received consents from a majority of the electors in the territory to be annexed under ZCA2005-00001. 3. Because the City has written consent of all owners of land and the majority of the voters in the territory proposed to be annexed. under ZCA2005-00001; the City may proceed with annexation of that territory without a vote in the territory to be annexed; pursuant to ORS 222.125. CITY ATTORNEY FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS At the August 9, 2005, the City Council received testimony from`various persons regarding four proposed.annexations. The Council allowed all parties until August 16 to submit additional written information. This document sets out the, City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. Issues Raised By More Than'One Person HB 2484 ; 1. Some people testified'that, House Bill 2484 (which has-been enacted, into law) either prevents the City from approving these annexations or demonstrates a legislative intent that'a vote is required in the area to be annexed.,, House Bill 2484 is a very simple bill. It amends. ORS 195.215, to make it clear that annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195 must be approved both by a majority of voters4n'the territory to be annexed and by a majority within the City. A. HB 2484 does. not apply to the annexations being considered by the City because HB 2484 applies only to. annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195; and the annexations before the City do not involve annexation plans or ORS Chapter 195. They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222, in particular ORS 222.125. HB 2484, even if it were effective, would not apply. to or affect these annexations. B. HB 2484 requires a separate,vote in the area fo'be annexed for annexation plan annexations. However, requiring a vote in'the area to-be annexed would be a meaningless and futile act for areas in which there are no registered voters. There are no registered voters in the area to be annexed in Mountain View Estates annexation (ZCA2004-00003) or in the Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge annexation area (ZCA2005-00003)..All of the registered voters in the Arlington Heights 3 (ZCA20005 -0000 1) and Wilson Ridge (ZCA 2005=00002) annexation have consented to annexation. HB 2722 2. HB 2722 (which has been'enacted into law) withdraws the right of cities to veto formation of new cities within three miles of their borders. Some opponents of annexation have argued that.the intent of this bill.is that the wishes of citizens in the affected areas are respected. A. HB 2722 does not apply to annexations. B. The affected areas are.the areas to be annexed. Two types of persons have interests in the affected areas.- those who own property and those who reside there." All owners of-all properties to be annexed, and all-voters in areas'to be annexed have consented to the annexation. No' owner or resident in the areas to be annexed has indicated that they do not wish annexation. . SB 877 3. SB 877 (which has been enacted into law) has three major effects. One is that it limits' the ability of the City of Beaverton to annex. "islands" of territory surrounded by that City. The second effect is that it requires a.majority'vote in the territory to be annexed by, means of an annexation plan under.ORS Chapter 195. The third effect is to-,prohibit the.' annexation of certain types of industrial property without the consent of the owner. `A. The provisions affecting only the City of Beaverton do not apply to the'Cityof Tigard. ' B. None of the proposed. annexations are "island" annexations, although an "island" is created by the Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge annexation. C. The annexations are not annexation plan annexations and are not subject to ORS Chapter 195.' D.. The, annexations are not of industrial land and are not the type of land that cannot be annexed without the consent.of the owner. The City has the consent of all owners of all land being~annexed. Voluntary or•Coerced.Consents, 4. A few persons argued that the consents are not valid because they were coerced. A. None ofthe people who *provided consents stated they were coerced. Those Who testified that the consents were coerced did not specify which persons were coerced. Several persons representing property owners (Tom Weber, John Marquart, and Al Jeck) testified that consents were voluntary and not coerced. The City Council finds that there is no evidence that any specific individual was,' coerced into consenting to annexation. If any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is likely that the person Would have appeared at the hearing. The Council concludes that none of the consents were coerced. B. ORS 222.115 specifically 'authorizes contracts between a city and a landowner relating.to the.extraterritorial provision of service in which the landowner consents to annexation. The fact that the City requires a consent to annexation in return for a'contract for'the extraterritorial provision-of service is explicitly authorized by statute•and does no_t bonstitute coercion. The City provides planning and building inspection services extraterritorially and may require consents to: annexation in order to provide those services. 2 C: ORS 222:175 recognizes that cities'rn' "solicit consents to annexation." The fact that a City seeks consents does not mean that they were coerced and does riot invalidate the consents. Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use'Proceedin 5. Some opponents have'argued that. sortie"of the consents were..required 'in connection with . land use proceedings, and the' City cannot require cobsents.to'annexation in order to process a land use application or as a condition of a land use approval; A. For consents'that were. provided in connection with',a land use.approval, the time to challenge the City's. authority to impose the consents was during-the land use process.' In each case, the land use process has been completed and the appeal period has-passed.-, The requirement to provide a consent to annexation can,no longer be challenged. B.., None of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use proceedings have in any way challenged the consents or the requirement to provide the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified-that they -affirmatively desire that their, properties be annexed to the_ City of Tigard.. General Concern For The Bull Mountain Area 6. Some opponents stated concerns related.to the Bull' Mountain area,in general.and to their, y. property in unincorporated areas, of Bull Mountain. Some. of them argue that the proposed annexations'should not proceed`because of the negative vote when the Bull •Mouritain.Annexation Plan was presented to the voters in the area to be annexed. A. The rights and interests of the owners and registered voters in the areas proposed , for annexation are recognized by statute. The "statutes do not create a legally protected interest for other persons. B. These annexations are different from the annexation plan presented to the voters.' These annexations'are property-specific annexations under ORS Chapter 222. 'r •The'City and the annexation applicants. are not requesting approval of an . annexation plan. The rej ection of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195 . does not prevent "later annexation 'of specific territory under a different annexation statute. "Double,Majori "Vote 7. , • Some opponents of the annexation argued that a. "double.majority'.' vote.(a separately tabulated "vote in the City and. in the area to be annexed) is required. A. A "double majority" vote is or will be' required for annexation plans under.-ORS t'- .3. Chapter. 195. However 'for annexations under ORS Cha ter.222 votes in the City., p . are not required unless required, by City charter or ordinance, and votes, m,the area to be annexed are not required if certain criteria are met. A Vote in the area to be annexed is not.required if all of.the,6wners of all of the land and a majority of the electors in,the'area to be annexed,.if any, consent to. the annexation. ORS 222.125.; The•City Charter and Code do not•require a vote'within the City.: B.,'. _ As to each of the annexations; the City has received,the consents of all of the. owners of all -of the land. The City has also received the,consents of all of the registered voters in'each area that has registered voters. , These annexations are not annexation plan annexations under ORS' 195, so the-double majority , . requirement' does not, apply. The City. is not required to hold a vote in any of the territories to be annexed, either because there are no electors in the areas to be annexed or because the City has the consent. of a majority of the electors in.those areas. "Islands'.'-Of 'Unincorporated Areas Surrounded By The City 8. Some opponents argued that these annexations create islands.of unincorporated areas surrounded by the City. They also note" 'that the:City may later annex those islands, without consent of owners or' electors. A. There is no legal;prohibition on the creation of islands. The City must consider annexation applications that create'islands under applicable standards. While the Council must consider. whether the borders. created by an annexation are.so irregular as to potentially cause problems-with the provision of police services, the police department accepts these boundaries-as being acceptable, and riot . causing confusion for the provision of police services. The police department has provided written. statements that they can provide services. The,Council finds that: the'boundaries' are -not irregular••.to the extent they create confusion in the provision of police services.. ,B. . The City does have the authority to annex islands, but is aware that the statutory" authority to annex islands may be withdrawn, as it has been withdrawn from one other city and from certain types of land.: The possibility of a future annexation proceeding is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding. whether to ' approve these annexations. Regular Boundaries" 9. Several persons -commented that the annexations will not result,iri a regular boundary. A The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plan. Policy 10.1.2, which"provides: Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be. based on 4.. findings with respect to the following: a. The~annexation eliminate an existing "pocket'-or "island of unincorporated territory; or b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City; C. The police department has commented on the annexation; d. The. land is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is contiguous to the City.boundary; e. The annexation can be accommodated by the seivices listed in 10.1.1(a). B. . Policy 10.1; 2 is'complied with if either (1),subsection a or. (2) subsections b through e are met. These annexations comply with subsections b through e. The annexation boundary will not make it difficult for the.police in emergency situations to determine whether the parcel is within or without the City., The police department has commented on the annexation and stated that it is capable of providing service. All areas proposed for annexation are within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and are contiguous to the City. The services listed in 10.1.1(a) (water,'sewer, drainage, streets, police and fire protection) can be provided to the areas to be annexed - the City and other responsible service providers have capacity to provide service to the areas to be annexed. Individual Comments - Testimony at Hearing Les and Ellen Godowski . 10. The Godowskis argued that the annexations will also prevent certain areas from creating their own cities or annexing to King City. A. The City has no obligation to refrain from annexing territory based on. the possibility that some other city may be incorporated *in the area at some point in" the future. B. All applicable plans and intergovernmental agreements that address urbanization or the provision of urban services designate Tigard as the City that will annex and/or provide urban services to the areas being annexed. Charles Radley 11. Charles Radley argued that the annexations would. violate Dolan. v. City of Tigard and that there is no "essential nexus." Mr. Radley also provided a written document. 5 A. Dolan v. City of Tigdrd applies only to, cases in which the'City exacts property from a property. owner: at the time of a land -use approval: Dolan does not apply to annexations: B. To the extent the Mr. Radley is arguing that the City could'not require the property owners to. consent to annexation as a condition of land use approval, that . challenge is too late. The"land.use approvals :are final and cannot be collaterally challenged. Furthermore, Mr. Radley was not-the applicant or a landowner in-any of the land, use cases and lacks standing to ,challenge conditions that=have been- accepted by the applicants. C. The "essiential .nexus" requirement is imposed on :exactions by the Nolan v. , California -Coastal Commission case: Like Dolan, the case applies only to` } exactions at the time of land use approvals, not to annexations. To the extent. that Mr.'Radley is challenging conditions of approval in' the previous` land`use.cases, that challenge is too late, and Mr:.Radley lacks standing to: make the challenge. D. The document that Mr; Radley provided,is an excerpt discussing~the requitement, under Rhode Island law, that a building official must issue a building "permiftliat meets` the requirements of the building code. Rhode Island law concerning building officials, is. not relevant to any issue:regarding these annexations.. If Mr. Radley is attempting'to argue that the City:carwarequire a consent to annexation, ' any requirement regarding consents to annexations by`the City are imposed in the. "context of a, land use. proceeding, The City has more authority and more discretion in land use proceedings than in issuing building permits. Julie Russell 12. In addition to issues raised,by others, Ms., Russell claimed that the rnap'included with the notice of annexation'was inaccurate as to which areas are included.within the City limits and which areas are outside-the City limits. - Ms. Rusself argued that the City's process violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1. and CDC 18.320.020: Ms. Russellstated dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning. A. The: maps provided with the notice were accurate.. They showed:the location.of the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by a. shaded yellow area. ~ There is no requirement to; provide a map with the notice of the annexation hearing.. Even if there was*some .inaccuracy, .the maps provided sufficient information. to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed and. their relationship 'to the City.. B. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2. 1A provides: "The,City sha 11 !maintain an ongoing citizen. involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an. opportunity to be"involved in all phases.of the planning process." This policy is: not an approval standard or' criterion for an. annexation application.' The. City's land use:regulations. have been acknowledged-, and those regulations provide the process, including citizen involvement, for considering land use applications. That process. includes notice and'a hearing, and the City provided .notice and a hearing, as required by the CDC. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by the regulations. * Citizens, including Ms: Russell, have had the,opportunity to.be' ; involved in process. The process ofnecessity works differently in a:quasi-judicial land use process than in.a legislative'process: . C.'.: CDC 18.320.020 provides: 18.320.020 Approval Process 'and Standards A: Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a - . Type IV.procedure, as_governed'by Chapter 18.390"using - standards of approval contained in Subsection-B2 below., B.. Approval Criteria: The decision to approve, approve with modification, or den'. an application to annex property to the City shall be based on the following criteria:. . L' All services 'and facilities are available to the area and have.. 1 ' sufficient capacity to provide service for the`.proposed annexation area;'and 2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisigns have been satisfied. C: Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on.;the property shall be the City's zoning district which most • closely implements the City's.or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically•andconcurrently-with. the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the City shall convert the `County's comprehensive.plan map and zoning'designations to the City designations which are the most similar.. A,zone 'change-is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or. zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently -with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. 'D. Conversio'fable. Table 320. 1, summarizes the conversion "of the County's plan'and`zoning designatioins'to Citydesignafions'which are most similar. The City used 'a Type 'IV approval process. The City has capacity to provide all required services. to the area, to be annexed, and the applicable. . Comprehensive Plan Policies, including those in'Chapter'10, have been. satisfied. The properties being annexed already have City comprehensive plan "and zoning designations, thafhave been adopted`and.imposed by the County. Ms: Russell. specifically argued that"the City lacks parks-capacity in the area. However, the City'has, sufficient parks capacity throughout the City to'.provide service to its residents, including residents.,in'the.areas being annexed. The services listed in. the Comprehensive 'Plan, water, sewer, storm sewer, streets, police and fire protection; are the•essential services. that must be available, and those. services will: . be available to the newly annexed areas.. Ms. Russell. questioned the. adequacy of the street system. The City Council -finds that the street system is adequate.to provide service and.will remain adequate: ' D. The. areas to be annexed all have existing`City zones that were established consistent with Table 320.11. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Community Development Code provisions. Scott Miller ' 13. In addition to issues addressed in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these findings, Mr. Miller stated a concern with an increase in taxes. Mr. Miller also` argued that the consents received by the City are not consents. A. Mr. Miller. does not own property.being annexed. His property is outside the area . proposed for annexation. His taxes will not increase as a result of the annexation. The property owners in the area to be annexed have consented to the annexation. - Whether taxes may increase is not an applicable standard,.or criterion in deciding an annexation. B. For each of the annexations; the.City has either the written consent of the property owners or a petition from the property owners to initiate the annexation. All are valid consents. . ,Lisa Hamilton Treick _ 14. In addition to issues address in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person"' section of. , these'findings; Ms. Hamilton Treick argued that Measure 37 gives property owners rights that'are violated by these annexations. : A. Ms: Hamilton Treick does not own property that will be,. annexed by these annexations. All owners of property being annexed have consentedto these annexations. The'property owners or'their representatives who testified expressly stated that they-voluntarily consent to the annexations.' One of them, Tom Weber, stated that lie actively sought annexation to' Tigard because of the value' it brings to' his property. Measure 37 is not an applicable'standard or criterion for ' annexation. 15: Ms. Hamilton Treick also'argued that-the City has no, authority to 'condition *land.A.se approvals or acceptance of land use' applications on a consent to annexation. A.' This is a challenge to final landuse decisions that.were not been. appealed within the time allowed by.statute.' Those decisions cannot be collaterally attacked.. B. The ,various agreements with the County and other urban service.providers, . including the Urban Services Intergovernmental. Agreement and Tigard Urban Service- Agreement, anticipate that, the City will provide planning services and will ultimately annex Tigard's urban service area' Requiring annexation is not inconsistent with those agreements. Urban Service Agreement Section, LD provides that the City shall endeavor,to annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed for annexation.' Requiring annexation consents effectuates this, provision of the Urban. Service Agreement.. The Urban Services. ' Intergovernmental Agreement gives Tigard all land use decision-making authority over the. area to be annexed. Land use authority includes the authority to impose conditions: ; . Individual Comments = Post-Hearing. Written.. Submissions " Julie Russell ti 16. Ms._ Russell again disciissed,general opposition to annexation in the~Bull.Mountainarea, HB 2484; SB 887, Comprehensive-Plan Policies 21. Land 10.1.2, and CDC, 18.320.020..' " The above,.findings'address those arguments. :17. Ms.:Russell also argues that the zoning is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The areas have all been rezoned'by the County and the zoning being applied is, the zoning required by CDC 1.8:320: 'Furthermore, as demonstrated in the written testimony of John Marquart; there is little or no practi.cal.difference, between Washington County R-6 and Tigard R-7. zoning, as'applied. .18. Ms. Russell argues that not everyone who was entitled to"receive'notice actually received notice. The City provided notice as-required by applicable. regulations. While it is possible that some persons did not receive notice, the City complies with the notice requirements. . 19.' Ms. Russell complains about possible, effects"on other service providers. The, City has , not received any negative commentsi-from other service`providers.. All-service providers in the area have.,agreed that the area being annexed will be annexed to Tigard. Services will be provided as agreed to in the Urban Services Agreements'entered into by the City and other service providers. 20. Ms. Russell argues that the annexation will interfere -with the orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services. However, her argument appears to be that services can be provided without annexation. That does not mean that annexation.will disrupt or interfere with service provision. The agreements between the service providers will ensure.orderly and economic provision of services. 21. Ms. Russell 'argues that the Alberta Rider School property should not be annexed. None of her arguments relate to any applicable standard or criterion. 22. Ms. Russell opposes the Summit Ridge annexation as non-contiguous. The Summit Ridge area being annexed will be contiguous with the City on annexation. 23. Ms. Russell objects to,the Annexation of Arlington Heights 3 on the grounds that the annexation will cause annexation to a homeowners association. That argument does not . relate to anyzpplicable standard or criterion.Participation-in a homeowner's association ' is a matter of contract between the parties and unrelated to a City's. authority io,annex. r Ms Russell also argues that the City cannot annex only part of a subdivision. No applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation of part of a subdivision. Furthermore, Arlington Heights 3 is a separate subdivision from -Arlington Heights 1 and 2. LaVelle and Marie Day 24. The Days object to the annexation on the grounds that the annexation may interfere with efforts to annex to King City or to.create a new city. This argument does not relate to any applicable criterion- or standard. None of the bays' other arguments are based on applicable'standards or criteria. Jackie and Gary Kisling 25. The Kislings raise issues related to HB 248.4 and HB 2722. Those bills are addressed in the above findings. Henry Kane 26. Mr. Kane makes arguments against island annexations. None of the annexations are'. island annexations. Lisa Hamilton-Treick and Tom Treick 27. Ms. Hamilton-Treick and Mr..Treick oppose the "process in which the hearings on four 10 annexations were combined as causing hardship on those who wish to appeal. Even if the hearings had not been combined, the hearings could have been, and most likely would have been held at the same meeting. ' Therefore; the appeals would have all been due at the same time. Combining the hearings allowed people to state their objections a single . time so as to avoid multiple repeated testimony. All persons were given a full opportunity to address any issues related to Any of the four annexations. 28: They'also object to the boundaries as being irregular and question the voluntariness of the consents. These issues are addressed above. 29. They also oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to Tigard's TIF accounts.' That is nota relevant issue and does not relate to any applicable standard or criterion. Philip E. Decker 30. Mr. Decker opposes the annexations as not being contiguous. No property being,annexed will be, separated from the City by any intervening unincorporated territory. The annexations'. of contiguous prop e. ty. 31. Mr. Decker argues that ORS 222.1-15 allows annexation contracts only for contiguous parcels. ORS 221115 does not require that property be contiguous at the time an annexation contract is signed. One purpose of.ORS 222 is to allow properties that are not contiguous to consent to annexation so thafthey can'receive urban services immediately and be annexed later when intervening properties annex. The contiguity requirement applies only, when the annexation becomes effective. 32. Mr. Decker argues that the areas being annexed are irregularly.shaped. The shape of the area being annexed is not' an issue. 33. Mr. Decker argues'that previous annexations were improper. The previous annexations are final and have not been challenged. They cannot be collaterally attacked at this,time. Comments In Support 34. After the hearing, the City received, several written comments in support of the proposed' annexations, including statements, from Sean Foushee, on behalf of the applicants for the Mountain View Estates, from John Marquart on behalf of the applicant for the Wilson Ridge annexation, and from Tom Weber, on behalf of the owners of the Arlington . Heights 3 property, all of whom. stated that the annexation applications were voluntary'. Mr. Marquart and Mr. Weber addressed other issues, strongly supporting the annexations . of their respective areas. G:\muni\Tigard\revisedannexationfindings081705.wpd . 11 ATTACHMENT- 5 Agenda Item: / Hearing Date: August 9, 2005 7:30 PM STAFFREPORT REPORT-TT CITY COUNCi 1 Cm OF MARD ~ F } R TIE CITYFIGAD,REG;N= cE 74 S(iapitig.A;Better: ~ - ommunuµ„y . SECTION 1. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME:: WILSON RIDGE ANNEXATION CASE NO.: Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2005-00002 AGENT: Alpha Community. Development Attn: Jerry Palmer 9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 OWNER: Rickie and Linda Graham 13400 SW Bull Mountain Rd Tigard, OR 97224 ..PROPOSAL: The applicant has.applied for-annexation of 2.68 acres into the City of Tigard. CURRENT ZONING ,DESIGNATION:.. R-7,. Medium Density Residential. EQUIVALENT CITY ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7, Medium Density Residential. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes; detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential. units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. LOCATION:.. 13350 and 13400 SW Bull Mountain Road, WCTM 2S109AC, Tax Lots 100 and 200 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development, Code Chapters 18.320. and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; and ORS Chapter 222. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OF 6 ZCA2005-00002-WILSON RIDGE ANNEXATION 819105 PUBLIC,HEARING } SECTION I1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff;recomrnends thatthe Council fi nd that the proposed :annexation wilt not adversely affect the h'ealth..safety and:welfar:.e of th e City: Therefore, s#aff::recornmends°APROYAL other annexationby adoption>of the attached oi'din~nce. SECTION III.. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant, Alpha ommunity eve opment, has applied for subdivision review for . which a decision for approval is pending but has not yet become effective. The subdivision is tentatively named Wilson Ridge. A standard condition of approval, for subdivision proposals on property that borders City limits within the Urban Services- Intergovernmental Agreement area is that the property annex ,prior to final-plat approval. There is no requirement that an applicant or property owner wait until receiving land use approval to annex the property. A parcel that is contiguous to the city limits may apply for annexation at any time. The total area represented in this annexation request is 2.68 acres and is contiguous to the present city limits along the western property boundary.. Vicini Information: The subject parcels are located. at the southwest comer of SW 13P and Bull Mountain Road. - SECTION IV.'' APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The relevant criteria in this case. are Tigard Comprehensive an Policies 2.1.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2, and; Tigard Community Development Code Chapter18.320. Staff has determined- that the proposal is consistent . with the relevant policies. of the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: Corn rehensive Plan o icy : e i shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement proggram and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in a[ phases of the , planning process. This Policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement _ proqram.' Interested parties and surrounding -properly owners within 500 feet have been nofified of the public,hearin and notice of. the hearing has been published in -a newspaper of general circulation. The sife has been posted since June 23, 2005. There have been a number of opportunities for citizens to be involved in the decision making process, including the review of the subdivision request. Policy -10.1.1: The City shalt review each of the following services as to adequate capacity, or such services to be made available= to serve the parcel if developed to the . most incense use allowed, and will not significantly reduce the. level of services .available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. The services i . are: water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection. This policy regires adequate service capacity - delive to annexed parcels. The City of Tigard Police, Engineering and Water Departments, NW-Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, have all reviewed the annexation request and have offered no objections. 'While the subdivision approval is complete but not yet effective, in the subdivision review staff found that the adliacent sfreets had adequate capacity, sewers will be extended from the Alberta Rider School site, storm drainage is conveyed through a 'new pipe to the Alberta Rider prolect,. and water is provided by an existing* 12° water ine, in Bull Mountain Road. The subdivision approval is contingent on the applicant providing.-these services prior to. recording the final plat. This policy•is satisfied. If required by an adopted capital improvements- program ordinance, the applicant shalt sign and record with Washington County a nonremonstrance agreement regarding the STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL, PAGE 2 OF 6 following:. The formation of a local,improvement'district (L.I.D.) for any-6f the'following services that could be provided through. such a ° district. . The.. extension ` .or improvement of the following: water, sewer, drainage and,streets. The -formation of.a special district for any of the above. services or the inclusion of the property. into a special service district for any of the above services. No LJ.D's have been required with the subject' parcels or subdivision approval. All public infrastructure listed,above•will have'to be completed before the'iand is'subdivided'by..a final " subdivision plat: The costs of providing such services will be borne by. the applicant.." Since. there are no capital improvements identified for this -site, no nonremonstrance agree I ment"is' necessary: The-City shall-provide urban services to. areas within the Tigard" urban planning area. or ' with'the urban-growth-boundary upon anexation. The. City of Ti and has an urban services agreement with Washington County, for those areas . within the CiWy urban. growth. boundary. This policy bas been complied with. Policy 10.1.2: approval of :proposed annexations of ;land by the city shall be based,on 'findings with' respect, to the following: the annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated' territory; or the annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in' a.n..emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the, city; the "police: department has commented upon the annexation; the land is- located.within the Tigard urban pplanning area'. nd is. contigguous to the city boundary; 'the annexation can be accommodated by the services Iistedin 10.1.1(a). This Policy pertains to boundary,criteria,for annexations: The proposed annexation will not eliminate an existing "pocket" or• "island" .of unincorporated territory; however the annexation will also not create an irregular boundary making it difficult for police to determine whether a particular. parcel is in: or. outside the city. The proposed annexation will incorporate the entire subdivision boundary for Wilson Ridge. There is a long 10 foot .wide "pole that runs south from-the parcels.. This is a remnant of an easement for access that`benefited other properties further south. *That easement has.been vacated on the subject parcel, so<essentially.what. remains is a long strip of land: While 'odd in . its configuration; the, annexation is simply including the entire extent of the, parcel as this policy requires. There is 'no attempt to include a cherry stem (typically achieved by.annexing roads) with this subject request: .All future lots within this subdivision will be inside city limits. The police department has commented on the proposed annexation request and did not voice. any objections. The land is within the Urban Services Area " inside the Urban Growth Boundary and is, bordered by the city limits on the northern side. Services to the subject property are addressed. above. This policy is met. Community Development Code- s ctin1$32U.02If This S ction Addresses .'approval' standards for annexation . proposa s: All services -and facilities are available ;to the-area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for-the proposed annexation area; Adequate service (`water, sewer,,, streets; and fire protection) capacity - is available to serve the annexed- arcels. .The City ofTigard Police, Engineering: and Water Departments, NW Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley fire::and Rescue, have all reviewed the annexation request', and have offered - no objections. Additionally, 'the . adequacy and availability of services to"serve the intended R-7 Medium Density residential development will be reviewed and conditioned -as necessary as part of the Wilson Ridgesubdivision review.'. Therefore, this policy is satisfied. ; The: applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing "ordinance provisions have been satisfied. STAFF. REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 6 . 7Cmt11511l1l1(19 _Uiu cnnF ctnr_G eKu.icvnTrnm o:ninc oYAo. r Appplicable Comprehensive Plan policies have been addressed above." The implementing ordlnance provisions .of ORS 222, TCDC 18.390, 'and Metro Code 3.09 were followed in • processing this annexation request. Conformance withother development code,provisions will be addressed at the time the property develops. This standard has been met. Assi nment of comprehensive, plan and zonin desi nations. The comprehensive p an esigna ion an the .zoning designation placed on a grope shall be the City's . zoning district. which most closely implements the City's or Coun 's comprehensive plan' map designation. The assignment of these designa tons snail occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the City shall convert the County's.comprehensive plain .map and zoning. designations to the City designations which are the most similar. A zone. . change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or/zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. The subject property ' is in the Urban Service Area and is zoned, R-7 medium density residentiali pursuant to the City of Tiigard's Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement . The R-7 zoning designation is. onsistent with the original Washington County's R-6 zoning designation as shown in the table below. The City's zoning was adopted by the County with the City's R-7 zoning district when the Intergovernmental Agreement was signed between the county and the city to provide city planning services to this area. Therefore, the property does not need to be rezoned upon annexation. According to Section 18.320.020.C, the City's Comprehensive plan and zoning designations occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's ' plan and . zoning estgna tons to City designations which are most similar. TABLE 324-t CONVERSION TABLE FOR COI NTY ANO CITY PLAN AND ZONINC DESIGNATIONS NVashington County Land Use City of Tigard Zoning City of "1'i'Tard UistrictslPlxn Designation Plain Desi-ination R-5 Res. 5 unitsiacre R-4.5 SFR 7,500 sq. ft. Low density 1-5 units..='acre' R-6 Res. C. units/acre R-7 SFR 5.000 sq. ft. Med. density 6-12 units/acre R-4.Res_ 4 unitsiacre R-12 Multi-f<mnity l2 unitsiacre Med_ density 12 units/acre R- 12 Res. 12 unii~:'acre R-12 i\it►lti family 12 units/acre fled. density 6-12 units/acre R-15 Res. 15 units/acre R-25 Multi-tvnily 25 units/acre 1`••tediuni-High density 1-1-25, unitsiacre R-2 1 Res_ 24 Units/acres R-25 Mtolti-F►mily 25 unitsiacre Medium-l-iigh density 13-25 im i tslacre Office Commercial C-P Commercial Professional C'P Commercial Professional NC Neighborhocod Commercial' CN Neighborhood Commercial CN NeihLorhotd Commercial CBD Commercial Business CBD Contatercial Business CBD Commercial Business District District District GC General Commercial. CG General Commercial C'G General Conuttercial IND Industrial I-L Light Industrial Light Industrial. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 4 OF 6 ~n A~ r ^M .Ana cnm nirv-e nKe►iwnrtnet oininc ol log n urn ou.n Metro l0fe#ro 109 requires the additional standards to, be addressed in annexation. decisions, in addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied:. as discussed below: Consistency,.-with the directly, applicable . provisions in an urban service provider agreement or annexatiori.plan adopted` pursuant to ORS 195.065; The processing. has been, done consistent ,With., applicable Urban - Service Provider , agreements. Consistency. with directly applicable provisions of urban pplanning, or other agreement, other than agreements adopted) pursuant to ORS, 195.065, between 'the affected entity and a necessary party; The'PProcess required by the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the.Urban Planrnng Agreement for annexations. Consistency. with specific- directly applicable standards'.. or criteria for boundary changes. contained in,comptehensive land use plans and public facility plans; This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, this criterion is satisfied, ' Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria •for boundary changes contained in the, Regional Framework Plan. or any functional plans; Because the, Development Code` has been amended ' to- comply: with applicable Metro functional plan requirements, by complyln with the Development, Code, and Comprehensive, Plan, the " annexation is consistent, with the applicable Functional Plan and the ' Regional Framework plan. . Whether the proposed changes, will promote. or not interfere with the timely, orderly and economic. provisions of public'facilities and services; ' `The proposed annexation -will not, interfere with : the provision of public facilities or services because it is adjacent to existing city limits and services; and the delivery of those services was anticipated .as part-of the urban services agreement which is intended to .promote the 'timely, orderly, and economic: delivery of those public facilities and services:' If. the proposed boundary, change is for -annexation of territory 'to Metro, -a: determination...by Metro Council that the territory should be included, in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be the primary criterion for. approval; The subject. property is already.-within the Metro boundaries., Consistency with other,,applicable criteria for the boundary change in'question under state and., local, law. . Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously-in this, report. REPORT JO THE,CfTY COUNCIL PAGE ZCA2005.00002 -'WILSON RIDGF ANNFXA-hON Minn ai tctr'ir uGeoiwir 5 OF 6 SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County Department Of Land Use & Transportation;. ' Verizon, Owest Communications, Northwest Natural -Gas, Beaverton School District #48; Comcast. Cable Corporation, Portland General Electric, Metro Area Communications, Cleanwater Services, Metro Land Use & Planning, Tualatin. Hills Park Rec. District, - Tualatin Valley Water - District, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, and Tigard/Tualatin School District 23J have had the opportunity to review the proposal and have offered no. objections. BASED ON THE FINDfNG,S INDICATED ABOVE; `PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS . ' :APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE. ANNEXATION ( t7, 2005'-00002 WI~$ON RIDGE ANNEXATION.; Jul 28 2005 PREPARED . organ acy DA FF Associate Planner Jul 28 2005 PWVED BY: Ic r Bewersdorff DATE Planning Manager STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 6 OF 6 ZCA2005-00002 -WILSON RIDGE ANNEXATION 8/9/05 PUBLIC HEARING f SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS CONCERNING COMPLIANCE 'WITH ORS CHAPTER 222 ZCA2005-00002 Wilson Ridge The City is proceeding with this annexation without an election in the territory to be annexed-under ORS 222.125. That statute provides: The legislative body of a city need not call or hold an election in the city or in any.contiguous territory proposed to'be annexed or.hold the. hearing otherwise required under.ORS 222.120 when all of the owners of land in that territoryand not less than 50 percent of the electors, if - any, residing in the territory consent in writing to the annexation of the land.in the territory and file a statement of their, consent` with the • legislative body. Upon receiving written consent to annexation by owners and electors under this section, the legislative body of the city, by resolution or ordinance, may set the•final boundaries of the area to be annexed by.a legal` description and proclaim the annexation. The Council finds: 1. There are two owners of the.two properties that are in the territory proposed for annexation- under ZCA2005-00002. Both owners have 'consented n writing to annexation to the City of Tigard and those consents have been duly filed with the city. 2. According to County voter registration information, two registered voters reside in the territory to be annexed under ZCA2005'00002. The City has received . signed consents to annexation from both voters and therefore has.the consents of a. majority of the electors in the territory to be, annexed: 3. Because the City has written consent of all owners of land and the majority of the electors in the territory proposed to be annexed under ZCA2005-00002, the City may proceed with annexation of that territory without a vote- in the territory to be annexed,. pursuant to ORS 222.125.. CITY ATTORNEY FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS At the August-9, 2005, the City Council received testimony from various persons . regarding four proposed annexations. The Council allowed all parties until August 16 to submit. additional written information. This document sets out the' City's. findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. Issues Raised By More Than One Person BB 2484 : . Some people testified that House Bill 2484 (which has been enacted into law) either prevents the City from approving these annexations or demonstrates a legislative intent. that a vote is required in the area to be annexed. House Bill 2484 is a very simple bill. - It amends ORS 195.215, to make it clear that annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195 must be approved both by'a majority, of voters in the territory to be annexed and by a majori ty within the City. A. HB 2484 does riot apply to the annexations being considered by the City because HB 2484 applies only to annexation plans under ORS Chapter 1.95, and the annexations before the City do not involve annexation plans or ORS Chapter, 195. They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222, in particular ORS 222.125. HB 2484, even if it were effective, would not apply to or, affect these annexations. B. HB 2484 requires a- separate vote in the area to be, annexed for annexation plan annexations. However, requiring a vote in the area to be 'annexed would be a meaningless and'Tutile act for areas inwhich-there are no registered voters. There are no registered voters in the area to be annexed in Mountain View Estates annexation (ZCA2004-00003) or in the'Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge annexation area (ZCA2005-00003). All of the registered voters in the Arlington Heights 3 (ZCA20005-00001) and Wilson Ridge (ZCA 2005-00002) annexation have consented to annexation. HB 2722 2.. HB 2722 (which has been enacted into.law) withdraws the right of cities to veto formation of new cities within three miles of their borders. Some opponents of annexation have argued that the intent of this bill is that.the wishes of citizens in the affected.areas are respected. A. HB 2722 does not apply to annexations: B. The affected areas are the areas to be annexed. Two types of persons have interests in the affected areas ' those who own property and those who reside there. All owners of all properties,to be annexed, and all voters in areas to be ' annexed have consented to the annexation. No owner or resident in,the areas to -be annexed has indicated that they do not wish annexation. SB 877 .3. SB 877 (which has been enacted into law),has three major effects' One is that it limits the ability of the.City of Beaverton to annex' "islands" of territory surrounded by that City. The second effect is that it requires a majority vote in the territory to be annexed by means of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195.• The third effect is to prohibit the . annexation of certain types of industrial property without the consent of the owner. A. The provisions affecting only the City of Beaverton do not apply to the City of Tigard. B. None of the proposed annexations are "island" annexations, although an "island". is created by the Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge annexation. C. The annexations are not annexation plan annexations and are not subject to ORS Chapter 195. D. The annexations are not of industrial land and are not the type of land that cannot be annexed, without the consent. of the owner. The City has the consent of all, owners of.all'land being annexed. Voluntary or Coerced, Consents . 4. A few persons argued that the consents are not valid because they were coerced. A. None of the people who provided consents stated they were coerced. Those who testified that the consents were coerced did not specify which persons were coerced. Several persons representing property owners (Tom Weber, John Marquart, and Al, Jeck) testified that consents were voluntary and not coerced. The City Council finds that there is no evidence that any specific individual was coerced into consenting to annexation..If.any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is likely that the person would have. appeared at the hearing. The Council concludes that none.of the consents-were coerced.. B. ORS 222.115 specifically authorizes contracts between a city and a landowner relating to the extraterritorial provision of service in which the landowner consents to annexation. The fact that the ,City requires a consent to annexation in return fora contract for the extraterritorial provision of service is explicitly authorized by statute and does not constitute coercion. The City provides planning and building inspection services extraterritorially and may require consents. to annexation in order to provide those services. C. ORS 222.175 recognizes that cities may solicit consents to annexation. The fact that a City seeks consents does not mean that they-were coerced and does not invalidate the consents. Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use Proceeding . 5. ' Some opponents have argued that some of the consents, were•required in connection-with, land use proceedings, and the City cannot.require consents to annexation in order to process a land' use application or as a condition of a land use approval. : A. For consents that wem provided in connection with a land use approval,.the time to challenge the City's authority to impose the consents was during the land use process. In•each case, the land use process has been completed and the appeal period has passed.* The requirement to provide a consent to annexation can no longer be challenged. B. None, of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use proceedings have in anyway challenged the consents or the requirement to provide the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified-that they affirmatively desire that their properties be annexed to the City of Tigard. General Concern For The Bull Mountain Area 6. Some opponents stated concerns related to the Bull Mountain area in general and to their property in unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain: Some of them argue that the proposed annexations should not proceed because of the negative vote when the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan was presented to the voters in the area to be annexed. A. The rights and interests of the owners and registered. voters in the areas proposed for annexation are recognized by statute.. The statutes do not create a legally protected interest for other persons. B. : These annexations are different from the annexation plan presented to the voters. These annexations are property-specific annexations under ORS Chapter 222. The City and the annexation applicants are not.requesting approval of an annexation plan. The rejection of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195 does not prevent later annexation of specific territory under adifferent annexation statute: "Double Majority" Vote 7. Some opponents of the annexation argued that "a "double majority" vote (a separately tabulated vote in the City and. in the area to be annexed) is required'. A. A "double majority" vote is or will be- required for annexation plans' under ORS 3 Chapter 195. However, for annexations under ORS Chapter 222, votes in the Cityare not required, unless _required by City charter or ordinance,: 'and votes in the area to be annexed are not required if certain criteria are met. A vote in the area to, be annexed is not required- if all of the owners of all of the land and a majority of the electors in the area to be annexed, if any, consent to the annexation. ORS ' 222.125. The City Charter and Code do not require a vote within the City. B. As to each`of the annexations, the_Cityhas received the consents of all of the owners of all of the land. The City has also received the consents of all of the registered voters in each area that has registered voters. These annexations are not annexation plan annexations under ORS 195, so the double majority requirement does not apply.- The City. is not required to hold a vote in 'any of the territories to be annexed, either because there are no electors in the areas to be annexed, or because the City has the consent of a majority of the electors in those areas. "Islands" Of Unincorporated Areas Surrounded By The City 8. Some opponents argued that these annexations create islands of unincorporated areas surrounded by the City. They, also note that the City may later, annex those islands without consent of owners or electors: A. There is no. legal.prohibition on the creation of islands. The City must consider . annexation applications that create islands under applicable standards. While the . Council must consider whether the borders created by an annexation are so irregular. as to potentially cause problems with the provision of police services, . the police department accepts these boundaries as being acceptable-and not causing confusion for the provision of police services. The police department has provided written statements that they can provide services. The Council finds.that the boundaries are not irregular to the extent they create, confusion in•the provision of police services. B. The City does have the authority to annex islands, but is aware that the statutory authority-to annex islands may be withdrawn, as it has been withdrawn from one other city and from certain types of land. The possibility of a future annexation proceeding is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding whether to approve these annexations: Regular Boundaries 9. Several persons commented that the annexations will'not result in a reg ular boundary. A. The applicable standard.is Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1.2, which provides: Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on 4 findings with respect to the following: a. The annexation eliminate an existing "pocket"-or "island of unincorporated territory; or b.. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City; C. The police department has commented on the annexation; d. The land is located within.the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is contiguous to the City boundary; e. The annexation can be accommodated.:by the services listed in 10.1.1(a).. . B. Policy 10.1.2 is complied with'if either'(1) subsection a or (2) subsections b through e are met. These annexations comply with subsections b through e. The annexation boundary will not make it difficult for the police in emergency situations to determine whether the parcel is within or without the City.; The police department has commented on the annexation and stated that it is capable of providing service. All areas proposed for annexation are within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and are contiguous to the City. The services listed in 10.1.1(a) (water; sewer, drainage, streets, police and fire protection) can be provided to the areas to be'amiexed - the City and other responsible service providers have capacity to provide service to the'areas to be annexed. Individual Comments - Testimony at Hearin Les and Ellen Godowski 10. - 'The Godowskis atgued that the annexations will also preyent'certain areas from creating their own cities or annexing to King City. A. The City has no. obligation to refrain from annexing territory based on the possibility that some other city may be incorporated in the area at some point in' the future. ' B. All, applicable plans and intergovernmenfal agreements that address urbanization or the provision of urban services,designate'Tigard as the City that will annex and/or provide urban services to the. areas being. annexed. Charles Radley 11.' Charles Radley argued that the annexations would violate Dolan v. City of Tigard and. that there is no "essential nexus." Mr.'Radley also provided a written document. 5 A. Dolan v. City of Tigard applies only to cases in which the City exacts property from a property owner at the time.of a land use approval. Dolan does not apply to annexations. l B. To the extent the Mr. Radley is arguing that the City could not require the property owners to consent to annexation as a condition of land use approval, that challenge is'too late. The land use approvals are.final and cannot be collaterally challenged. Furthermore, Mr.: Radley was not the applicant or a landowner in any of the land. use cases and lacks standing to challenge conditions that have been accepted by the applicants. C. The "esstential nexus" requirement is imposed on exactions.by the Nollan v.' California Coastal Commission case. Like Dolan, the case applies only to exactions at the time of land use approvals, not to annexations. To the extent that Mr. Radley is challenging conditions of approval in the previous land use cases, that challenge is too late, and Mr. Radley lacks standing to make the challenge. D. The document that Mr. Radley provided is an excerpt discussing the requitement, under Rhode Island law, that a building official must. issue a building permit that meets the requirements of the building code. Rhode Island law concerning building officials is not relevant to any issue regarding these annexations. If Mr. Radley is attempting to argue that the City cannot require a consent to annexation, any requirement regarding consents to annexations by the City are imposed,in the context of a land use proceeding. The City has more authority and more discretion inland use proceedings than in issuing building permits. Julie Russell 12. In addition to issues raised by others, Ms. Russell claimed that the map included with the notice of annexation was inaccurate-as to-which areas are included within the City limits and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell argued that the City's process violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1. and CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell stated dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning. A. The -maps provided:with the notice were accurate. They showed the location of the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by a shaded yellow area. There is no requirement to provide a map with the:notice of the annexation hearing. Even if there was some inaccuracy, the maps provided sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed and their relationship to the City. B. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2. 1.1 provides: "The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is 6 J not an approval standard or criterion for an annexation application. The City's land use. regulations have been acknowledged, and those regulations provide the process, including citizen involvement, for considering land use.applications. That process includes notice and a hearing, and the City provided notice and a hearing, as required by the CDC. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by ..the regulations. Citizens, including Ms. Russell, have had the opportunity. to be involved in process. The process of necessity works differently ina quasi-judicial. land use process than in a4egislatiye process. C. CDC. 1$.320.020 provides: - 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards A. Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390-using standards of approval contained in Subsection B2 below. B. '.Approval Criteria. The decision to approve; approve with modification,' or deny an application to annex property to the City shall be based on the following criteria: 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and'have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and -2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing.ordinance,provisions have been satisfied,. . C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment'of these designations shall occur automatically'and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations; the City. shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the . City designations which are the most similar. A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A'requesi for a zone-change can be processed • concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. D. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion.of the 7 County's plan'and zoning designations to City designations which are most similar. ' The City used a Type'IU approval process. The City has:capacity'to provide all required services to the area to be annexed, and the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, including those in Chapter 10, have been satisfied. The properties being annexed already have City comprehensive plan and zoning designations, that have been adopted and imposed by the County. Ms. Russell specifically argued that the City lacks parks capacity in the area. However; the 'City has sufficient parks capacity throughout the City to provide service to its residents, including residents in the areas being annexed. The services listed in the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer; storm sewer, streets, police and fire protection, are the essential services that must be available, and those services will be available to the newly annexed areas. Ms. Russell questioned the adequacy of t the street system. The City Council finds that the street system is adequate to provide service and will remain adequate. D•. The areas to be "annexed all have existing City zones that were established consistent with Table 320.1. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Community Development Code provisions. Scott Miller , 13. In addition to issues addressed in the "Issues Raised By More Than. One Person" section of these-findings, Mr. Miller stated a concern with an increase in taxes: Mr. Miller also argued that the consents received by the City are not consents. A. Mr. Miller. does not own property being annexed. His property is outside the area proposed for annexation. His taxes will not increase as a result of the annexation. The property owners in the area to be annexed have consented -to the annexation. Whether takes may increase is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding an annexation. B. `For each of the annexations, the City.has either the written consent of the property owners or a,petition'from the property owners to initiate the annexation. All are valid consents. Lisa Hamilton Treick 14. In addition to issues address in•the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" - section of these findings, Ms. Hamilton Treick argued that Measure 37 gives property owners rights that are violated by these annexations. ; A.. Ms. Hamilton Treick. does not own property that will be annexed by these annexations. All owners of property being annexed have-consented to these 8 } annexations. -The property owners or their representatives who testified expressly stated that they voluntarily consent to the annexations. One of them, Tom Weber, stated that he actively sought annexation to Tigard because of the value it brings' to'his property. Measure 37 is not an applicable standard or criterion for annexation: .15. Ms. Hamilton Treick also argued that the City has no authority to condition land use approvals or acceptance of land use applications on a consent to annexation. A. This is a challenge to, final. W4 use decisions that were not been appealed within the time allowed.by statute. Those decisions cannot be collaterally attacked. B. The various agreements with the County and other urban service providers, including the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement and Tigard Urban Service Agreement, anticipate that the City will provide planning services and will ultimately annex Tigard's urban service area. Requiring annexation.is not inconsistent with those agreements. Urban Service Agreement Section I.D provides that the City shall.endeavor to annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed for annexation. Requiring annexation consents effectuates this provision of the Urban Service Agreement. The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement gives Tigard all land use decision-making authority over the area to be annexed. Land use authority includes the authority to impose conditions. . Individual Comments - Post-Hearing Written Submissions Julie Russell 16. Ms. Russell again discussed general opposition to. annexation -in the Bull Mountain area, HB 2484, SB 887, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1. Land 10:1.2, and CDC 18.320.020. The above.findings address those arguments. 17. Ms. Russell also argues that the zoning is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The. areas have all been rezoned by the County and the zoning being applied is the zoning required by CDC 18.320. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the written testimony of John Marquart,. there is little or no practical 'difference between Washington County R-6 and Tigard R-7 zoning, as applied. 18. Ms. Russell argues that not everyone who was entitled to receive notice actually received notice. The City provided notice as required by applicable regulations. While it is possible that some persons did not receive notice, the City complies with the notice requirements. 19. Ms. Russell. complains about possible effects on other service providers. The City has not received,any negative comments from other service providers. All service providers 9 in the area have agreed that the area being annexed will be annexed to.Tigard. Services will be provided as agreed to in the Urban Services Agreements entered into by the City:. and other 'service providers. 20. Ms. Russell argues that the annexation will interfere with the orderly and economic provision of public facilities and. services. However,, her argument appears to .be that services can be provided without annexation: That does not mean that. annexation will disrupt or interfere with service-provision. The. agreements between -the service providers will ensure orderly and economic provision of services. 21. Ms. Russell argues that the Alberta Rider School property should.not be annexed. None of her arguments relate to any applicable standard or criterion. 22. Ms.-Russell opposes the Summit•Ridge annexation as non-contiguous. The Summit' Ridge area being annexed will be contiguous'with,the"City• on annexation. .23. Ms. Russell objects, to the Annexation of Arlington Heights 3 on the grounds that the annexation will cause annexation to a homeowners association. That argument does not relate to any applicable standard or criterion.- Participation in a homeowner's association is a matter of contract between the parties and unrelated to a City's authority to annex. Ms Russell also, argues. that the City cannot annex only part of a subdivision. No applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation of part of a subdivision. Furthermore, Arlington Heights 3 is a separate subdivision from -Arlington Heights 1 and 2. LaVelle and Marie Day 24. The Days object to the annexation on the grounds that the' annexation may interfere with efforts to annex to King City or to create a new city: This'argument does not relate to any applicable criterion or standard. None of the Days' other arguments are based on applicable standards or criteria. Jackie and Gary Kislin 25. The Kislings raise issues related to HB 248.4 and HB 2722. Those bills are addressed in the above findings. Henry Kane 26. Mr. Kane makes arguments against island annexations. None of the annexations are island annexations. Lisa Hamilton-Treick and Tom Treick 27. Ms. Hamilton-Treick and Mr..Treick oppose the process in which the hearings on four 10 annexations were combined as causing hardship on those who wish.to appeal. Even' if the hearings had not been combined, the hearings could have been, and most likely would have been-held at the, same meeting. Therefore, the appeals would have all been due at. the-same time. Combining the hearings allowed people to state their objections a single time so as to avoid multiple repeated testimony. All persons were given a full opportunity to address any issue's related to any of the four annexations. 28. They also object to the boundaries as being irregular and question the voluntariness'of the consents. These issues are addressed above. 29. They also oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to Tigard's TIF accounts. Thafis} ' not a relevant issue and does not relate to any applicable standard or criterion. Philip E. Decker 30. Mr. Decker opposes the. annexations as not being contiguous. No property being annexed will be. separated from.the City by any intervening unincorporated territory. The annexations are of contiguous property. 31. Mr. Decker argues that ORS 222.115: allows annexation contracts only for contiguous parcels. ORS 222.1-15 does not require that property be contiguous at the time an ' annexation contract is signed. One purpose of ORS 222 is to allow'properties that are not contiguous to consent to annexation so that they can receive urban services immediately and be annexed later when intervening properties annex.. The contiguity requirement applies only when the annexation becomes effective. 32. Mr: Decker argues that the areas being annexed are irregularly shaped. The shape of the area being annexed is not an, issue. 33: Mr. Decker argues that previous annexations were improper. The previous annexations are final and have not been challenged. They cannot be collaterally attacked at this time. Comments In Support 34. _ After the hearing, the'City received several written comments in support of the proposed annexations, including statements from Sean'Foushee, on behalf of the applicants for-the Mountain View Estates, from John Marquart on behalf of the applicant for the Wilson Ridge annexation, and from Tom Weber, on behalf of the owners of the Arlington Heights 3 property,.all of whom stated that the annexation applications were voluntary. Mr. Marquart and Mr. Weber addressed other issues, strongly supporting the annexations . of their respective areas. G:\muni\Tigard\revisedannexationfindings081705.wpd ATTACHMENT_ 6 Agenda Item: Hearing Date: August 9, 2005 7:30 PNI ' STAFFREP0T TOT-1E z 3 CITY CQ EIL fff, Yom: of FrO TIE CITY'OF T G RD, RL 'er;~ Y~}O nY~i+.Mu~ S• .:~~~~~F~~ . ~ A:'?eS'M1 N~Yd~'.~~-tkl~~- ~".r9c ' •Y>Y'+ti. ~ SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: -ALBERTA RIDER/SUMMIT RIDGE ANNEXATION CASE NO.: Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2005-00003 ,OWNER(S): Various Owners PROPOSAL: Annexation of 56 parcels containing approximately 20.75 acre_s_ into the City of Tigard. CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION:.. R-7, Medium Density. Residential. EQUIVALENT CITY ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7, Medium Density Residential. ' The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without.accessory.residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and. duplexes; at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and' institutional uses.. are also _ permitted conditionally., LOCATION: Alberta- Rider School: WCTM 2S109AC, Tax Lot 2100 and 2S109AD, ax of 300; an Remaining Portions of Summit Rid e' Subdivision:. WCTM 2S109DA, Tax Lots 8500, 8600, 8700, 8800, 9400, 9500, 9 0 , 9700, 9800, 9900, .10000, 10100, 10200, 10300, 11500, 11600, 11700, 11800, 11900, 12000; 12100, _ 12200, 12300, 12400, 12500, 12600, 12700, 12800, 12900, 13000, 13400 and 13500, and WCTM 2S109DB, Tax Lots 1000, 1900,.2100,'2200, 2300, 2400,'2500, 2600, 2700, 2800, .2900, 3000, 3100,-..3200, 3300; 3400, •3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900 and-4000. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and. 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.and 10; Metro Code Chapter. 3.09; and ORS Chapter 222. SECTION II.' , STAFF RECOMMENDATION off` ~ecomrnends th°at the' Council find tha the proposedannexation wilt riot adversely ~fPe„et the health', safety and: welfare of the-City'."`- Therefore staff recommends APPROVAL., Q thenriexa Cori-by aciaption of,.theattaclied ©rdinance., STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OF 6 ZCA2005-00003 -ALBERTA RIDER/SUMMIT RIDGE ANNEXATION . 8/9/05 PUBLIC HEARING SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Vicinit Information: The subject parcels are. located at the southeast comer of. SW 133`d and Bull Mountain Road, and to the south in the Summit Ridge Subdivision, west of SW Greenfield, north of SW Beef Bend Road. Site Information and Proposal Description: There. are essentially t ree.areas invo ve in this particular annexation request: the Alberta Rider School site; the undeveloped portion Phase 3) of. Summit Ridge; and the remaining portions of Summit Ridge (Phase 1 and 2) that were not previously annexed last year. :There, are a total •of 56 properties involved in this request totaling approximately 20.75 acres. - For the first area, the. school site, as a condition of - the Conditional Use approval, the applicant was required to annex the property prior to final building permit inspection. This was. done to allow the school to proceed .m a timely fashion on their construction schedule while. going through the process to annex. The intention is that the annexation will be complete before the school needs to-open, for if the annexation is not approved in time, final inspections can't be conducted and the school cannot be occupied. The second area, Phase 3 of Summit Ridge, the subdivision was required to annex prior to recording the'final* plat for the lots. This is a standard condition that is applied to properties requesting development approval when bordering the city lirNts. For the third area, Phases. 1 and 2 of Summit Ridge, portions of,this.subdivision are inside and some are outside the city' limits. During the review of Summit. Ridge Phase 1 and 2, . the property did not abut the city limits. The City required that the applicant sign a"consent form for future annexation when'the city limits did abut the site. During an-annexation hearing to annex the Arbor Summit subdivision immediately, north of Summit Ridge, the City included one of the parcels.of Summit Ridge through a double majority method. The annexation occurred and -was finalized before the -plats for those phases were recorded. . The result was that some of the lots that were, created through. those plats ended up straddling,the city limit boundaries. Seethe following '.map. • 3eiioat . r y STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 OF 6 ZCA2005-00003 -ALBERTA RIDER/SUMMIT RIDGE ANNEXATION svorng; P1 ini Ir uGeaitir_ SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA'AND FINDINGS', .The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 10.1.11 10:1.2, and; Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.320. v Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant' policies of the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: Comprehensive Plan Policy. 2.1: . e ity shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that'citizens will be provided an opportunity.to be involved in all phases of the planning process. This Policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement program.... Interested parties and surrounding _ property owners within 500 feet.-have been notified of the: public hearing and notice of the hearing has been published in-a'.newspaper of general circulation. The site has been posted since June 23, 2005. There have been a number of opportunities for citizens to be involved in . the decision, making process; including the review of the subdivision and conditional use request. Policy 10.1.1.: The City shall review each of, the following services - as- to adequate; capacity, or such services to be made available, to serve, the parcel if develod to the , most intense use allowed, and will- not .significantly reduce the level ors ervices available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. The services are: water; sewer, drainage,,streets, police, and fire protection. This policy requires adequate service capacity delive to annexed 'parcels. The Ci. of Tigard Po ice, Engineering and Water Departments, NW Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley ire and Rescue, have all reviewed the annexation request and.have offered no objections. In. the review of the .Alberta Rider School and Summit Ridge, subdivision, staff found that the adjacent streets had. adequate capacity, with completion of required improvements, sewers win be. extended up from Bella Vista subdivision on the south; through Summit Ridge and up through the Alberta Rider School site, storm drainage. is conveyed through a new pipe from Bella-Vista to. the Alberta Rider project, and water is provided by an existing 12° water line.in Bull Mountain Road.. The subdivision approval is continggent on the applicant providing these services prior to recording the final plat. The conditional. use . approval also required completion of these utilities and facilities:. This policy is satisfied: .If required by an.adopted capital improvements; program ordinance, the applicant shall sign and record with Washington County a nonremonstrance agreement regarding the following: , The formation of 'a local improvement district (L.LD.) for any of the following services that could be provided through such a district. The extension or improvement of the following: water, sewer, drainage and streets. The formation of a . .special district for any of the' above services or the inclusion of the property into a special service. district for any of the above services. ft L.I.D's have been required with the subject parcels Orland use approvals. All public infrastructure listed above will have to be completed before the land is subdivided by a final subdivision plat or final inspection occurs on the school building. The costs of prov'ding such services will be bome by the applicant. Since there are no capital improvements identified for this site, no non remonstrance agreement is necessary. The City shall provide urban services to areas within. the Tigard urban planning area or with the urban growth boundary upon annexation. The City of Tigard has an urban services' agreement with Washington County for those areas within the City's urban growth boundary in the Bull. Mountain area. This policy has been' complied with. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 6 ZCA2005400003 - ALBERTA RIDERISUMMIT RIDGE ANNEXATION 8/9/05 PUBLIC HEARING Policy 10.1.2• approval of proposed annexations of land. by the. city shall be based on findings with respect to the following: the annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated territory; or the annexation will not.create an irregular :boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the city; the police department has commented upon the annexation; the land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is contiguous to the city boundary;. the annexation can be accommodated. by the • services listed in 10.1.1(a). This Policy pertains to boundarycriteria for annexations. The proposed annexation will -not eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated territory; however the annexation will also not create an irregular boundary making it difficult for police to determine whether a particular parcel is in or outside the city: In.fact, this annexation is in part to address a situation where parcels fall both inside and outside the city limits. Specific Jurisdiction for a number of services is clouded by the partial inclusion of these properties:. Their formation is the result. of disjointed annexation and plat approval timing: The subject annexation will eliminate this ,confusion and implement the original requirements placed on the subdivision regarding annexation of the property The proposed annexation will. incorporate the entire subdivisioh boundary for Phase 3 of summit Ridge. In addition, the entire property where the Alberta Rider school site sits is also included in this request. Boundaries of this request.. follow logical extensions to the edge of the properties, except where the school abuts Bull Mountain Road. In that location the annexation will indude,the remaining portion of that road. that is not presently in the city limits. The land is.within the Urban Services Area inside the Urban Growth Boundary and is bordered by the, city limits on the northern side. Services to . the subject property are addressed above. This policy is met. Communit Development Code section 18.320.020: i'fFi Section addresses . approval standards for annexation proposa s: All services and facilities are available to the area and' have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation ,area; . Adequate service water, sewer, drainage, streets, and fire protection) capacity is available to serve the annexed ,parcels. The City ofTigard Police; Engineering and Water Departments, NW Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, have all reviewed the annexation request and have offered no . objections. Additionally, the adequacy and availability of services to serve the intended R" Medium Density residential and institutional development has been reviewed and conditioned as necessary as art of the Summit Ridge subdivision and Alberta Rider reviews. Therefore, this policy is satisfied. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied.: Ap licable Comprehensive Plan policies have been-addressed above. The implementing Ordinance provisions of .ORS 222, TCDC 18.390, and Metro Code 3.09 were followed in processing this annexation request. Conformance with other development code provisions. have been addressed, in the previous'land use reviews. This standard has been met. Assignment of comprehensive Ian and zoning designations., The comprehensive :pan. designation an the zoning designation place on a prope shall be the City's zoning district which most closely, implements the City's or Coun 's compprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designa ions shall occur :automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In. the case of -land which carries County designations, the City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City designations which are the most similar.. A• zone change is required if the applicant requests, a comprehensive plan map-and/or/zoning map designation other than the existing designations. - (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed , concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 4 OF 6 7CA9nnr..nrnnn - At RFRTA RinFR/RI IMMIT RinrF.ANNFXATIr)N aro1n9Z of Ins It' LJCA01 Mr_ The subject properties are in the Urban .Service Area and 'are. zoned R-7, medium density residential, pursuant to the City of Tiigard's Urban,Services Intergovernmental Agreement . The R-7 zoning designation is consistent with the original Washington County's., R-6 zoning designation as shown in the table below:.:The City's zoning-was adopted. by the County with. . the City's R-7 zoning district when the Intergovemmental Agreement was signed between the . county and the city to provide city planning services to. this area. Therefore'. the property `does not need to be rezoned upon annexation. • According to Section. •18.320.02 .C,- the • City's Comprehensive plan and zoning. designations occur automatically and concurrently- with the annexation. : Conversion table. Table ..320:1 summarizes the. conversion of the County's, plan and zoning esigna, ions to City designations which are most similar. _._.__.:372-Gf?[T~!"''YQ!Tl)~CI7ILrMF1t1Y3=?A7.IL~I D~SI:Gl~4`I`L3 Aid R~.SslZes:::5_un~tsac= .:.--4~ _5M.7- - 500: S(I i .r_ r::_ R ;;FR ~ . 2r um ere - - - - t~..x1NwnfrsJae~~__ °i2le 1'2_urixf(re _1lult~famsl _i_nnlsere. ;L: s Pcr)txlju-farnti'~ 5=ueru# ?Adm..:. iteissY E. -z - - - - - - - - - - - - - R ~#R s 2 ti xtslacres:.:-':_ 2 2 [u..l..... un€1 uncc lac _ : t±iedtum=.Efi t1e . i33~ ;tort - - - - - - =~ntercfi~~tz~natt::;...< ::CL":Go~o.ineicaal_ f?to'~es tta1-::>;: ' .......:.....::,..:.:erc . ~ 8~bo_. tl ~ err.~.:.: „us_,_:ass B[7.CammercialBusmess__:;; = BBD C©rimcia:.3u mess= :~GGi:cfrezieral;::~vu~tme•;ciat,:; ::.::~~~13~nerai:~iimu~,es~iar7.:_.....___.-~:__..- :_.C~_C~rc~eral.~amnterraal':::_:~r:..=-_=_ -1 L 11 - - Metro Me- ro 3.09 requires the additional standards, to be'addressed`in annexation. decisions in. addition to the local" and state .review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as' discussed below: Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant.to ORS' 195.065; The processing . has -•been done. consistent with "applicable* applicable Urban : Service : Provider agreements: ; Consistency with directly, applicable provisions• of urban planning or other agreement, other than agreements,adopted ;pursuant to ORS •195.065, between 'the affected, entity and a necessary party; The process required by the Development Code' and',Comprehensive'Plan'is.consistent with the Urban Planning Agreement for annezati orris. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL » PAGE 5 OF 6 ZCA2005.00003 - ALBERTA'.RIDER/SUMMIT RIDGE ANNEXATION wcunr, Pi iai icuFnawr_ Consistency. with specific directly applicable standards or criteria, for boundary changes contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans; This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, this criterion is satisfied. Consistency with. specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary'' changes contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans; Because the Development Code has. been amended to comply with. appplicable Metro functional plan. re .uirements, by complying with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is consistent with the applicable Functional Plan and the Regional Framework plan: . Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and economic provisions of public facilities and services; The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provision of public. facilities or services because it. is adjacent to existing city limits and services, and "the delivery of those services was anticipated as part of the urban' services agreement which. is intended to promote the timely, orderly, and economic delivery of those public facilities and services. If the proposed'. boundary :change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by Metro . Council that the territory should be included in the Urban. Growth Boundary shall be, the primary criterion for approval; The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries. Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary change in question under state and local law. Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussedpreviously in this report. SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County Department- Of Land Use Transportation, Verizon,. Qwest Communications, Northwest Natural Gas, Beaverton School District #48, Comcast Cable, Corporation, Portland General .Electric, Metro Area Communications, Cleanwater Services, . Metro-Land Use & Planning, Tualatin. Hills Park & Rec. District; Tualatin Valley Water District, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, and Tigard/Tualatin School District 23J have had the opportunity to review the proposal and. have offered no objections. AS~D ~ ~ l`II~'Dt'N D = D AB` ~E ~ #~Ni G 5 , ~ IF ONE 'C EINNEXA~IQN 005~1~ ECbIV~A~EN APR©\/ tI~Q3aBER~T IDEFtl~S~1 DGEBANNEX!►~l~N ~ ~ ~=~~f ~ Y~', 60,0 ,0000000 Jul 28 2005 PREPARED B77 organ r cy DATE' Associate Planner` o~ 16S. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL; PAGE 6 OF 6 7QA9(1fL""l - AI RFRTA RIDF_R/Sl IMMIT RIDGE ANNEXATION 8/9/05 PUBLIC HEARING SUPPLEMENTAL, FINDINGS CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH ORS CHAPTER 222 ZCA2005-00003 - Alberta Rider / Summit Ridge' The City is proceeding with this annexation without an election in the territory. to be annexed under ORS 222.125. That statute provides: . The legislative body of a city need not call or-hold an election in the city or in.any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed or hold'the hearing otherwise required under ORS 222.120 when all of the owners of land in that territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors, if any, residing in the territory consent in writing to the annexation of the land in the territory and file a statement of their consent with the legislative body. Upon receiving written consent to annexation by, owners and electors under this section, the legislative body of the city, by resolution or ordinance, may set the final boundaries of the area to be annexed by a legal description and proclaim the annexation. The Council finds: 1. With the exception of one `person who has a life estate in one portion of the area originally proposed for annexation, all of the owners'of land in the territory proposed for annexation under ZCA2005-00003 have consented in writing to annexation to the City of Tigard and those consents have been duly filed with the city. 2. According to County voter registration information, there is one:registered voter residing in, the territory originally proposed to, be annexed under ZCA2005-00003. That elector is the same person who has 'a life estate in a property within the area originally proposed,for annexation. This elector has not signed a petition or consent to annex: Therefore, the portion of the proposed annexation territory where the elector resides and has a life estate cannot-be included in the proposed annexation.without an election.` 3. The City Council determined to-exclude-the area where the elector/life estate holder resides. The annexation'of the remaining area may proceed without a vote , in the territory to be annexed pursuant to ORS 222.125. because the City has the consent of all owners and there are no electors, in the area now proposed for annexation. CITY ATTORNEY FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS At the August 9, 2005, the City Council received testimony from various persons regarding four proposed annexations. The Council allowed all parties until August 16 to submit additional written information. This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. Issues Raised By More Than One Person HB 2484 1. Some people testified that House Bill 2484 (which has been enacted. into law) either prevents the City from approving these annexations or demonstrates a legislative intent that a vote is required in the area to be annexed. House Bill 2484 is a very simple bill. It amends ORS 195.215, to make it clear that annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195 must be approved both by a majority of voters in the.territory to be annexed and by a majority within the City. A. HB 2484 does not apply to the annexations being considered by the City because HB 2484 applies only to annexation plans under'ORS,Chapter 195, and the annexations before the City do not involve annexation plans or ORS Chapter 1955. They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222, in particular ORS 222.125. HB 2484, even if it were effective, would not apply to or affect these annexations. B. HB 2484 requires a separate vote in the area to be annexed for annexation plan annexations. However, requiring a vote in the area to be annexed would be a meaningless and futile act for areas in which there are no registered voters. There are no registered voters in the area to.be annexed in Mountain View Estates annexation (ZCA2004-00003) or in the Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge., annexation area (ZCA2005-00003).. All of the registered voters in the Arlington Heights 3 . (ZCA20005-00001•) and Wilson Ridge (ZCA 2005-00002) annexation have consented to annexation. HB 2722 2. HB 2722 (which has been enacted into law). withdraws the right of cities to veto formation of new cities within three miles of their borders. Some opponents of annexation have argued that the intent of this-bill is that,the.wishes of citizens in the affected areas are respected. A. ' HB 2722 does not apply to annexations. B. The affected areas are the areas to be annexed. Two types of persons have interests in the affected areas - those who own property, and those who reside there. All owners of all properties'to be annexed, and all voters.in areas to be 1 annexed have consented to the annexation. No owner or resident in the areas to be annexed has indicated that they-do not wish annexation. SB 877 3. SB-877 (which has been enacted into law) has three major effects. One is that it limits the ability of the City of Beaverton to annex "islands" of territory surrounded by that City. The second effect is that it requires a majority vote in the territory to be annexed.by means of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195. The third effect is to prohibit the annexation of certain types of industrial property without the consent of the owner. A. The provisions affecting only the City of Beaverton do not apply to the City of Tigard. B. None of the proposed annexations are "island" annexations, although an "island"' is created by the Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge annexation. C., . The annexations are not annexation plan annexations and are not subject to ORS Chapter 195. D. The annexations are not of industrial land and are not the type of land that cannot be annexed without the consent of the owner. The City has the consent of all owners of all land being annexed. Voluntary or Coerced Consents 4. A few persons argued that the consents are not valid because they were coerced. A. None of the people who provided consents stated they were coerced. Those who testified that the consents were coerced did not specify which persons were coerced. Several persons representing property owners (Tom Weber, John Marquart, and Al Jeck) testified that consents were voluntary and not coerced. The City Council finds that'there is no evidence that any specific individual was ' coerced into consenting to annexation. If any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it.is likely that the person would have appeared at the hearing. The Council concludes that none of the consents were coerced. B. ORS 222.115 specifically authorizes contracts between a city and a landowner relating to the extraterritorial provision of service in which the'landowner consents to annexation. The fact that the City requires a consent to annexation in return for a contract for the extraterritorial provision of service is explicitly authorized by statute and does not constitute coercion. The-City provides planning and building inspection services extraterritorially and may require consents to annexation in order to provide those services. • 2 C. ORS 222.175'recognizes that cities may solicit consents to annexation. The fact that a City seeks consents does not mean that they were coerced and does not invalidate the consents. Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use Proceeding 5. Some opponents have argued that some of the consents were required in connection with. land use proceedings, and the City cannot require consents to annexation in order.to process a land use application or as a condition of a land use approval. A. For consents that were provided in connection with a land use approval, the time to challenge the City's authority to impose the consents was during the land, use ' process. In each case, the land use.process has been completed and the appeal period has passed. The requirement to provide a consent to annexation can no longer be challenged. B. None of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use proceedings have in any way challenged the consents or the requirement to provide the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified that they affirmatively desire that their properties be annexed to the, City of Tigard. General Concern For The Bull Mountain Area 6. Some opponents stated concerns related to the Bull Mountain area in general and to their property in unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain. Some of them argue that the. proposed annexations should not proceed because of the negative vote when the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan was presented to the voters in.the area to be annexed. A. The rights and interests of the owners and registered voters in the areas proposed for annexation are recognized by statute. The statutes do not create a legally protected interest for other persons. B. These annexations are different from'the annexation plan presented to,the voters. These annexations are property,-specific annexations under ORS Chapter 222. The City and the annexation applicants are not requesting approval of an annexation plan. The rejection. of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195 does not prevent later annexation of specific territory under a different annexation. statute. "Double Maiori " Vote 7. Some opponents of the annexation argued that a "double majority" vote (a separately tabulated vote in the City and. in the area to be annexed) is required. A. A "double majority" vote is or will be required for annexation plans under ORS J Chapter-195. However, for annexations under ORS Chapter-222, votes in. the City are not required unless required by City charter or ordinance, and votes in the area to be annexed are not required if certain criteria are met. A vote in the areaao be annexed is not required if all of the owners of all of the land and a majority of the electors in the area to be annexed, if any, consent to the annexation. ORS 222.125. -The City Charter and Code-do not require a .vote within the City. B. As to each of the annexations, the City has received the consents of all of the owners of all of the land. The City has also received the consents of all of the registered voters in each area that has registered voters. These annexations are not annexation plan annexations under ORS 195, so the double majority . requirement does not apply. The City is not required to hold a vote in any of the territories to be annexed, either because there are no electors in.the areas to be annexed or because the City has the consent of a majority of the electors in those areas. "Islands" Of Unincorporated Areas Surrounded By The City 8. Some opponents argued that these annexations create islands of unincorporated areas surrounded by the City. They also note that.the.City may later annex those islands without consent of owners or electors. A. There is no legal prohibition on the creation of islands. The City must consider annexation applications that create islands under applicable standards. While the . Council must consider whether the borders created by an annexation are so irregular as to potentially cause problems with the provision of police services,. the police. department accepts these boundaries as being acceptable and not causing confusion for the provision of police services. The police department has provided written statements that they can provide services. The Council finds that the boundaries are not irregular to the extent they create confusion in the provision of police services. B. The City does have the authority to annex islands, but is aware that the statutory authority to annex islands may be withdrawn, as it'has been,withdrawn from one other city and from certain types of land. The possibility of a future annexation proceeding is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding whether to approve these annexations. Regular Boundaries 9. Several persons commented that the annexations will not result in a regular boundary. A. The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1.2, which provides: Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on 4 findings with respect to the following: a. The annexation eliminate an existing "pocket" -or "island of unincorporated territory; or b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City; C. The police department has commented on the annexation; d. The land is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is contiguous to the City boundary; e. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(a). B. Policy 10. 1.2 is complied with if either (1) subsection a or (2) subsections b through e are met. These annexations comply with subsections b through e. The annexation boundary will not make it difficult for the police in emergency situations to determine whether the parcel is within or without the City. The police department has commented on the annexation and stated that it is capable of providing service. All areas.proposed for annexation are within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and are contiguous to the City. -.The services listed in 10.1.1(a) (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police and fire protection)'can be provided to the areas to be annexed - the City and other responsible service providers have capacity to provide service to the areas to be annexed. Individual Comments - Testimony at Hearing Les and Ellen Godowski 10. The Godowskis argued that the annexations will also. prevent certain areas from creating their own cities or annexing to King City. A. The City has no obligation to refrain from annexing territory based on the possibility that some other city may be incorporated'in the area at some point in the future. B. All applicable plans and intergovernmental agreements that address urbanization or the provision of urban services designate Tigard as the City that will annex and/or provide urban services to the areas being annexed. Charles Radler 11. Charles Radley argued that the annexations would violate Dolan, v. City of Tigard and that there is no "essential nexus." Mr. Radley also provided a written document. 5 A. ' Dolan v. City of Tigard applies only to cases in which the City exacts property from a property owner at the time of a land use approval. Dolan does not apply to annexations. B. To the extent the Mr. Radley is arguing that the City could not require the property owners to consent -to annexation as a condition of land use approval, that challenge is too late. The land use approvals are final and cannot be collaterally challenged. Furthermore, Mr. Radley was not the applicant or a landowner in any of the land use cases and lacks standing to challenge conditions that have been accepted by the applicants. C. The "esstential nexus" requirement is imposed on exactions by the Nollan v. California Coastal Commission case., Like Dolan, the case applies only to exactions at the time of land use approvals, not to annexations. To the extent that Mr. Radley is challenging conditions of approval in the previous land use cases, that challenge is too late, and Mr. Radley lacks standing to make~.the challenge. D. The document that Mr: Radley provided is an excerpt discussing the requirement, under Rhode Island law, that a building official must issue a building permit that meets the requirements of the building code. Rhode Island law concerning building officials is not relevant to any issue regarding these annexations. If Mr: Radley is attempting to argue that the City cannot require a consent to annexation, any requirement regarding consents to annexations by the City are imposed in.the . context of a land use proceeding. The City has more-authority and more discretion in land use proceedings than in issuing building permits. Julie Russell 12. In addition to issues raised by others, Ms. Russell claimed that the map included with the notice of annexation was inaccurate as to which areas are included within the City limits and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell argued that the City's process violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1: and CDC 18.320.020. Ms: Russell stated dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning. A. The maps provided with the notice were accurate. They showed the location of the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by a shaded yellow area., There is no requirement to provide a map with the notice of the annexation hearing. Even if there was some inaccuracy, the maps provided sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to .be annexed and their relationship to the City. B. Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.1.1` provides: "The City shall maintain an ongoing . .citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process.'.' This policy is 6. riot an' approval standard or criterion for an annexation application.. The City's land use regulations have been acknowledged, -and those regulations provide the process, including citizen involvement; for considering land use applications. That process includes notice and a hearing, and the City provided-notice and a hearing, as required by the CDC. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by the regulations. Citizens, including Ms. kussell, have had the opportunity to be involved in process. The process of necessity works differently in a quasi-judicial land use process than in a legislative process. C. CDC 18.320.020 provides: 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards. A. Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means.of a Type IV procedure, as 'governed by Chapter 18.390 using standards of approval contained in Subsection B2 below. B.'. Approval Criteria. The decision'to approve, approve with modification; or, deny an application to annex property to the City shall be based on the following criteria:. 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide.service for the proposed annexation area;., and • r 2.. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan'designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's. zoning district which most . closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations;. the .City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City designations which are the'most similar. A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with-an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. D. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the . County's plan and zoning designations to City designations which are most similar. The City used a Type IV approval process. The City has capacity to provide all required services to the area to be annexed, and the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, including those in Chapter 10, have been satisfied. The properties being annexed already have City comprehensive plan and zoning designations, that have been adopted and imposed by the County. Ms. Russell specifically argued that the City lacks parks capacity in the area. However; the City has sufficient parks capacity throughout the City to provide service to its residents, including residents in the areas being annexed. The services listed in the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer, storm sewer, streets, police and fire protection, are the essential services that must be available, and those services will be available to the newly annexed areas. Ms. Russell questioned the adequacy of the street system. The City Council finds that the street system is adequate to provide service and will remain adequate. D. The areas to be annexed all have existing City zones that were established consistent with Table 320.1. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Community Development Code provisions. Scott.Miller 13. In addition to issues addressed in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these findings, Mr. Miller stated a concern with an increase in taxes. Mr. Miller also argued that the consents received by the City are not. consents. A. Mr. Miller does not own property being annexed. His property is outside the area proposed for annexation. His taxes will not increase as a result of the annexation. The property owners in the area to be annexed have consented to the annexation. Whether taxes may increase is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding an annexation. B. For each of the annexations, the City has either the written'consent of the property owners or a petition from the property owners to initiate the annexation. All are valid consents. Lisa Hamilton Treick 14. In addition to issues address in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these findings, Ms. Hamilton Treick argued that Measure 37 gives property owners rights that are violated by these annexations. A. Ms. Hamilton Treick does not own property that will be annexed by these annexations. All owners of property being annexed have consented to these 8 annexations. The property owners or their representatives who testified expressly stated that they voluntarily consent to the, annexations. One of them, Tom Weber, stated that he actively sought annexation to Tigard because of the value it brings to his property. Measure 37 is not an applicable standard or criterion for annexation. 15. Ms.. Hamilton Treick also argued that the City has no authority to condition land use approvals or acceptance of land use applications on a consent to annexation. A. This is a challenge to final land- use decisions that were not been appealed within the time allowed by statute. Those decisions cannot be collaterally attacked. B. The various agreements with the County and other urban service providers, including the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement and Tigard Urban Service Agreement, anticipate that the City will provide planning services and will ultimately annex Tigard's urban service area. Requiring annexation is not inconsistent with those agreements. Urban Service Agreement Section I.D provides that the City shall endeavor to annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed for annexation. Requiring annexation consents effectuates this provision of the Urban Service Agreement. The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement gives Tigard all land use decision-making authority over the area to be annexed. Land use authority includes the authority to'impose conditions. Individual Comments - Post-Hearing Written Submissions Julie Russell 16.. Ms. Russell again discussed general opposition to annexation in the Bull Mountain area, HB 2484, SB 887, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1: Land 10.1.2, and CDC 18.320.020. The above.findings address those arguments. ; 17. Ms. Russell also argues that the zoning is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The areas have all been rezoned by the County and the zoning being applied is the zoning required by CDC 18.320. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the written testimony of John Marquart, there is little or no practical difference between Washington County-R-6 and Tigard R-7 zoning, as applied.. 18. Ms. Russell argues that not everyone who was entitled to receive notice actually received notice. 'The City provided notice as required by applicable regulations. While it is possible that some persons did not receive notice, the City complies with the notice requirements. . 19. Ms. Russell.complains about possible effects on other service providers. The City has not received any negative comments from other service 'providers. All service providers 9 in the area have agreed that the area being annexed will be annexed to Tigard. Services will be provided as agreed to in the Urban Services Agreements entered into by the City and other service providers. 20. Ms. Russell argues that the annexation will interfere with the orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services. However, her argument appears to be that. services can be provided without annexation. That does not mean that annexation will disrupt or interfere with service provision.. The agreements between the service providers will ensure orderly and economic provision of services. 21. Ms. Russell argues that theAlberta Rider School property'should not be annexed. None of her arguments relate to any, applicable standard or criterion. . 22. Ms. Russell opposes the Summit Ridge annexation as non-contiguous. The Summit Ridge area being annexed will be contiguous with the City on annexation. 23. Ms.,Russell, objects to,the Annexation of Arlington Heights 3 on the grounds that the annexation will cause. annexation to a homeowners association. -That argument does not. relate to any applicable standard or criterion. Participation in a homeowner's association is a'matter of contract between the parties and unrelated to a City's authority to annex. Ms Russell also argues that the City cannot annex only part of a subdivision. No applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation of part of a subdivision. Furthermore, Arlington Heights 3 is a separate subdivision fromArlington Heights 1 and .2. Lavelle and Marie Day. 24. The Days object to the annexation on the grounds that the annexation may interfere with efforts to annex to King City or to create a new city. This argument does not relate to any applicable criterion or standard. None of the Days' other arguments are based on applicable standards or criteria. Jackie and Gary Kisling 25. The Kislings raise issues related to HB 2484 and HB 2722. Those bills are addressed in the above findings. Henry Kane' 26. Mr. Kane makes,arguments against island annexations. None of the annexations are -island annexations. Lisa Hamilton-Treick and Tom Treick 27. Ms. Hamilton-Treick and Mr..Treick oppose the process in which the hearings on four '10 annexations were combined as causing hardship on those who wish to appeal. Even if the hearings had not been combined, the hearings could have been, and most likely would have been held at the same.meeting. Therefore, the appeals would have all been due at the same time. Combining the hearings allowed people to state their objections a single time so as to avoid multiple repeated testimony.' All persons were given a full . opportunity to address any issues related to any of the four annexations. 28. They also object to the boundaries as being irregular and question the voluntariness of the consents. These issues are addressed above. 29. They also oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to Tigard's TIF accounts. That is not a relevant issue and does not relate to any applicable standard or criterion. Philip E. Decker 30. Mr: Decker opposes the annexations as not being contiguous. No property being annexed ' will be separated from the City by any intervening unincorporated territory. The annexations are of,contiguous property. 31. 'Mr. Decker argues that ORS 222:115 allows annexation contracts only for contiguous parcels. ORS 222.115 does not require that property be contiguous at the time,an annexation contract is signed. One purpose of ORS 222 is to allow properties that are not contiguous to consent to annexation so that they can receive urban services immediately and be annexed later when intervening properties annex. The contiguity requirement applies only when the annexation becomes effective. 32. Mr. Decker argues that the areas being annexed are irregularly shaped. The shape of the area-being annexed is not an issue. 33. Mr. Decker argues that previous annexations were improper. The previous annexations are final and have not been challenged. They cannot be collaterally attacked at this time. Comments In Support 34. After the hearing, the City received several written comments in support of the proposed annexations, including statements from Sean Foushee, on behalf of the applicants for the Mountain View Estates,.from John Marquart on behalf of the applicant for the Wilson Ridge annexation, and from Tom Weber, on behalf of the owners of the Arlington Heights 3 property, all of whom stated that the annexation applications were voluntary. Mr. Marquart and Mr. Weber addressed otherissues, strongly supporting the annexations of their respective areas. G:\muni\Tigard\revisedannexation findings081705.wpd ,11 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 2005- AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 6.94 ACRES; APPROVING MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION (ZCA2004-00004), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City, of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(B) and 222.170 to initiate an annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in -the territory proposed to be annexed and written consent from owners of 'more than half the land in the territory proposed to be annexed; 'and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by-ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting .District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing'on August 9, 2005 to consider the annexation of two (2) parcels of land consisting of 6.94 acres and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Water District for certain debt obligations, however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing on'the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting, District #1, and the-Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS,. pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must. declare the withdrawal of annexed properties :from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District by Ordinance; and . WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning most closely conforming to the County zoning; and WHEREAS, the current zoning district. is R-7, an existing City zone that has been adopted by the County and the zoning after annexation would remain R-7 so that no zone change is necessary, and by . annexation the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard goes into effect; and ORDINANCE NO. 2005- ZCA2004-00004 Mt. View Estates Annexation Page 1 of 2 WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the'requirements of Metro 3.09 and has been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating annexations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Council adopts the staff report and the document entitled "Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance' with ORS Chapter 222" as findings. In addition, Council adopts. the document entitled "City Attorney Findings in Response to Comments" as additional findings of fact. SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in the attached Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit 7B" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, the . Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban.Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting Distr ict #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District. SECTIONS: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting by the City Recorder. SECTION 4: City staff is directed to Make all necessary measures to implement the annexation, includingfiling certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities. SECTION 5:. Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County.Street Lighting District #l, and the Washington 'County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this annexation. , SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2006. SECTION 7: In accordance with, ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective, upon filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day. of ; 2005. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 52005. Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date, ORDINANCE N0.2005- ZCA2004-00004 Mt. View Estates Annexation Page 2 of 2' EXHIBIT A Mountain View Estates ZCA2004-00004 Legal Description for Annexation COMBINED TAX LOTS 2SZ10CB-00100 and 2S110CB-00500 Owners: Dwight C. Minthorne and Karla.Minthome (T.L. 500) Owners: Richard R Wright and Diane M. Wright (T. L. 100) . A tract of land in Section 10; ,Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian in Washington County,' State of :Oregon and being. more particularly described as follows: Commencing* at the West quarter comer of Section 10, Township 2 South, Range . 1 West of the. Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington, State of Oregon, said point also being the Initial Point, thence, South 89°58'17" E a distance of 333.50 feet along the South line of "Thomwood ; a recorded . subdivision in Washington County Survey Records; -thence, South 03 ° 15'00" East a distance of 175.10 feet along the West line of that tract of land described in Document Number 99111751, Washington County Deed Records to the North' line of "Tumagain Heights" - a recorded subdivision in Washington County Survey Records;'thence, North 89°55'03" West a distance of 70.73. feet along the North line of said "Turnagain Heights" to the Northwest corner of said. subdivision; thence, South 03°30'35" East a distance of 1076.57 feet along the West line of said " T'urnagain Heights" to the North line of S:W. Beef Bend Road, County Road. Number A-148; thence,. along said North line, along a curve to the left having a radius of 1467.06 feet through a central angle of 00°50'44", the long chord of: which bears S 61 ° 5756" W a distance of 21.65 feet; thence,. along said line, -South 62023'18'`-West a distance of 161.60 feet along said North line; thence, along said North line, along 'a curve to the right having a-radius of 858.00 feet through a central angle of 00°22'39'; the long chord bears South 62°11'59" West a distance of 5.65 feet to the West line of that tract of land described in . Document Number 78044753, Washington County Deed Records; thence, North a distance of 629.34 feet along said West line, to the Northeast corner of said. tract of land; thence, West a distance of 171.29 feet along the North tine of. said tract of land to the East line of that tract of land described in Document Number 2004-032242, Washington County Deed Records; thence, North a distance of 707.80 feetalong the. East line of said tract of land and the East tine of ` ""'Arlington Heights No. 2", a recorded subdivision.in Washington County Survey Records to the Initial Point. Contains 302- feet, 6.94 acres, more or less. I 2S1 10CB 2S1 10CB •'.•:IQ4r s uda..! •,j.7:.:n;~• ,'I',..: L!•':?",,t. 'as' ,.1`•;:' al, :+0: ,48 ~'i~rrdi.• '70''''y'k ••iun' iwn1A%I:w~,idur 75-7 701-777- . V I I Sol I _ 0 `y, ; ; ' InYb'','' 1, ,.t`: . 1: r,' ,ao I I it°OU ',7! u' tN~', 1w•, .47K ~Z , wl '~."!4'•'':c _ I i I - y a!' ':r,':•,r ,;iMNv : ~i^MN? .0 I toi"00 13 13800 62 18 "V. ''FN r` ° ° 3100. 1: . kj°fp,'{ SW,••~ TUMNVIEW 4 S~ Iz. 3 800 13 i0 3800 4000 ~4' I i.7~0..e WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON ! to - 1800 I 'w"" •.,;',t000; ~u,wM•:, " wa"e I NW1/4SW74SECTION10T23N1WW.M. a SCALE 1' - 100' = 9 I 7800 -6100 ^ a I I ,6200 7 , X 17 23 600 I to ffii u00 t x700 „ { u 4 ` - I - p1l 9.7w ;,t, ,7pp 621 .1° I a . ' i('~i ',svt (A Ilk A 6400 ! °a r'%+; • . : x,',. % \r ''1•' I '4900 _ ie • .3° S i r,.;• :;,i" ~;rl' ,U': ° :a, Lul 'a' 80 6100 00 31 3 O ll~ 00 (3 FOAADOMNALMAPEV/S?OURWESSMA7 , ,►1rweow°Mlnproaorue d O 6200 °700 D I ®1, p » ~ atoo 'a JIM OMM e 3 d°00 ~I . ® C•/ :r" .•:fly.' r':t';;~ •;;i; : x"., 6270364 too » ' ® ® i v: e4• 10°5 ® Plop' V' r, ':r. ~f ' , t~ ii C l: Y I 62013 E FI l4° ~ u • N u' ,l:' ;c 6 li t 3 ~a~r hoe ~31 • Z. haa;' ,,'r '•:1P,i': V I N j 7`~ e.oo IV r, N„Mn :a ! ~~,tu ® `0 40800 ~j f / { 1 p Ce `CAr' ::9D1; :-.PA 86400 j :e 7h t! 0 ~~y. _ ~t7 ~ty~~• v, ''I' 8800 ® IgOF u1:~p ' 7400 t.. 1700 a--- fi't ' ftt ENO ® *M&INW ® WL►Na! v+' 49 L0°' • ; • A . ' 1 Y~-0 I UPPLtMtNTAL No cenceo°°raironFor; zstioca ,•,t::' yo0~ ® ® a ii.Sol.100 Yiii.iiia° 7600 • ® ® ~ 8 r 1 B • •se:8 tn0° ntm. nlm.nl m xa°nn. _ 3 -a+'~-- R ® v 6 IieW ° %.,t i2wKe:o ob,aa~io'i~~oitnD1ol:oioi; 800 r-- o ' 600 ® r'te' area aloA °rio4 ntat.n„u HtosntW, tie" `-I rs N ,7• ~ d,:; nxanso.,a,0anaae-a~m,atm,e7lo; ' iZlssS] _ ; 42ot,aim a,oaaloiome °707'°'701 '•t, •',t,• Nom" _ ny.- 2300 - Mtm, Ntd. M107, MIta 1'4111, Nlie. .1. ` I , i ' 1700 \J to 'eD •y' '•a:,,":f' 64ZS,@4Vk Nt,t,Mlt/~Ntt7,N7a,..30a 1800 CN 644628 nia,w+t,wa4a,a4a401,waoa e00 16,\ 1 ; 3'p ~afw.• :I Y~;a : V` , 47, 2 41 14 ' ;~~!1.,,.• , - 36400 13 .6e. 1 , . low= °~.y.4.~ !A~(~~ 3100 " t0 ♦ 6 st r Assessment ' • r. ~ : ,>r. A 0 1300 W '•'•r • ,'''i'", ,`t':~ r' f 1710 a.): =a~j e. ~ ~C 6e w1200 ,,r1 '7~° a d O i, r'. T-c x a 9 8' ®:wn„ x {:1• i° u Q r~707'yti r, , ~y PLOT DATE: November 24, 2003 pt Ilk- w: -4: ~AC IN * m j . +1708 ► e 'z FOgkfSESSMENT PURPp IN too v _ • • r' :<''a' ONL pQN TgELyONSES r7~ 9 x a = 170 rta G~ PG Y,' ~oR OT~ER USE ,'i: ••I 10003 ° G~ .1"'',",';ti' r,t• F~ Mro.nnaM.,.dM•ee«o,n wa,i er.neu~4roNd 8640 ~r ou.*.r.a•~tir.rewr.,a,nrn.auc.nn.ew,r • ` '•r Sr' .tp' Hne K .3 1 ~~p` ~ I nnw.rwnu,YmwmAr4 w.u. mnmM Cpephp nV ' * "`kt,,~' ' A'/,y •yL ~ ~'r;' ~~,•.r i, •:ti.. ',c ~ '+V. ~ •~~.r.'' - ar»,rwu wnK wamu~. . A`. wt`s' li 'r~U.l:~y ) _;:i r,tae ,•il.'... ~j "f.., .;1,', r tp+' _ •innod• ''1Siif4i~u., ~ ~;t:: me !°°.4 ' ~ ~;'D°4u::; •r,N )Y' ~~G ' .r; 1:•^,''~:~ *.r .-r,, ti.7 • ~ :F$ • • ,YS ` f F sa' , .6 t r , :•M„400' , , n,uowti :r :C . . . . . f'". KING rITv . oc ~ •1•nrc~ ~c ~ •1 Ti o CITY of TIGARD V N OEOORAPNIC INFORMATION BYaT.9M IEW VICINITY M P . m ` M `2 TH op ` OOD DR W n+t~ - - ZCA2004-00004 MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES' SUBDIVISION M R ANNEXATION. lu IV rn R9 DR R~ - - - - FEFa5 w 9 J - U' WASHINGTON COY ON IT ' - BEl1F RENO im. R Tigard Area Map N 0 100- 200 300 400 Feet 1'- 312 reel - City of Tigard Information on this map Is for general location only and should be verl0ed with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hell Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 6394171 httolAm" iAloard.er.us CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 2005- AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 16.97 ACRES, APPROVING ARLINGTION HEIGHTS 3 ANNEXATION' (ZCA2005-00001), . AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED. SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,' WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS, MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(B) and 222.170 to initiate an annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in.the territory proposed to be annexed and written consent from owners of more. than half the land in the territory proposed to be armexed; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 t6 withdraw properties which currently lie within the boundary of the Tigard -Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District -upon. completion of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on August 9, 2005 to consider the annexation of three (3) parcels of land consisting of 16.97 acres and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1,. and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Water District 'for certain debt obligations, however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore; no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County. Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance. District, Washington County Street Lighting District. #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District by Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation; the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning most closely conforming to the County zoning; and WHEREAS, the current zoning district is R-7, an existing City zone that has been adopted by the County and the zoning after annexation would 'remain.R-7 so that no zone change is necessary, and by annexation the Comprehensive Plan.of the City of Tigard goes into effect; and ORDINANCE NO. 2005- ZCA2005-00001 Arlington Heights 3 Annexation Page 1 of 2 WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 and has been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating annexations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is.in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:. SECTION 1: The Council adopts the staff report and -the document entitled "Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222" as findings. In addition, Council adopts the document entitled "City Attorney Findings in Response to Comments" as additional findings of fact. SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described .in the attached Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit "B" 'and withdraws said-parcels from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1; and the Washington County Vector Control District. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting by the City Recorder. SECTION 4: City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation, includingfiling certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as required. by law, and providing notice to utilities.. SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the Washington County'Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County'Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2006. SECTION 7: In accordance. with ORS 222.180, the, annexation shall be effective. upon filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2005. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder . .APPROVED: By Tigard City Council. this . day of , 2005. Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE NO. 2005- < ZCA2005-00001 Arlington Heights 3 Annexation Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A Arlington Heights •3 ZCA2005-00001 A tract of land. situated in the Section 9. & 10, Township 2 South Range 1 West Willamette Meridian described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of Tract "C" of the subdivision plat of Arlington Heights No: 2 Which is on the'east line of Section:99. thence S Ol° 43 36" W, along said : " east line', a distance of 248.13 feet; thence S 88° 16' 24" E, leaving said east line, a distance of 171.29 feet; thence S 01° 43' 36" W a distance of 629.34 feet to the north right of way of SW Beef Bend Road and a point on a non-tangent curve-to the left' .thence along said curve to the left with a radius of 858.00 feet, a central angle of 18° 45' 39" (a chord which bears S 54° 22'14" W,279.69 feet) and a length of 280.94 feet to a' point of tangency,. thence S 44° 59' 24" W; along said north right-of-way, a distance of 13.10 feet; ' thenceN 01 ° 43' 36" Fa distance of 217.45 feet; thence N 88° 59' 02'.'W a distance of 591.22 feet to the east line of Summit.Ridge subdivision; thence N 02° 02' 19" E a distance of 109.42 feet; thence N 01° 28' 06" E a distance of 173.28. feet;' thence N 02° 14"47" E a distance of 134.59 feet; thence N 00° 00' 56". W a distance of 130.41 feet; thence N 01° 54' 35" E a distance of 389:30.feet;. thence N 01° 11' 42" E a distance of 210.05 feet to the south line of Arlington Heights NO. 2; thence along said ' south line the following7 courses;. thence S 37° 29' 33" E a distance of 140.72 feet; thence S 41 ° 09' 15". E a distance of 13427 feet; thence S 71 ° 02' 09" E a distance of . 10557 feet; thence N 84° 57':06" E a distance of 113.51. feet; thence S 81 ° 44' 42" E.a distance of 69.971eet; thence S 07 15' 19" R a distance of 7353 feet; thence S 90° 00' 0.0" E distance of`180.00 feet to.the point of beginning. ' . 2S 1 09DA 2S 1 09DA X-x ~ 'r ^'r' i6. .,•t •.u •:i .'t~,•'t•' .,i 4 • teoo 77 1 „t - ':t' •'.ti . q t, '•K' ,,r:`„ty''. 'O3 ulPpd'\ •2 2 - ''y,' •Y, .m l,• •'w4.i.A :AiP .t~~f J~ 66 0: 1~6 '':r •y. ~,t ,•r ;t~. y;•~•,:. 7f . ,r. . 7 •w1J•itfiM~. • . 0 d'rjra :d(w.;. Ka er' r:u,`=; ee 7e°e YY 4600 8400 ':i +:u •a~ a .o... '\e~>,•;r;.; b'f, 1 t j;fm y,! l!` 1800 o34 o. r.. W'r 's '~C• .f+ff: ,u,'•.{:P ' ,'v 4 iw,.r"•, i is t` - 41 S: •K : ,ye Y 1000 q ~ ~ p ~ i; r. ''Ml•' .,Jt :.iYp~' . tt :n;,rr' '^~M .'/w' .~M~':• ° ; ~y `y "al, P 07 / 'e4 r--" u W 1700 °b a.. ,.r,.r, • ,600 R ei is • wP;rl%., ':i %+s;"•: .~w}• ~ata ~ ntlo ~ {t 7e i ~ ,•r;. ' • •y;.• y ,i! + 6 { 7400 4700 ' ' e: uoo 70 r;`,, ,t>• ri' 'n y 's ;t, ti. •j+~ l !+4.i : +w HAZELCREST 7100 44840 W"o u . ` f V\E~ . " w w 4100 , UMM~P. e9/ „~i •,•;r,, !2m A Q Z of 'A e CJ 'qG r:•i •r. ..i'II.:. w w Jy s a+19 try / :41 .ekt Wira u~gp1+ /fit "Yp"b 'u~c• e=oo \ 7.00 uao 4000 ± a9L7 7iC r, f' TJ 7e » ,WASHINGTON000NTYiOREGON ' '1000 t 000 NV~E ` NE114SE7/45ECTION08T181H1W W.M• 1200 7000 47 eeoo no0 h W ST A ''r 'r, . ,7 ! { ;,:":i• ,Y.' „D~ 7io~ s7 ' n e1 44 g eoo a • ;C '1: ,.•'i,'~'~•;{ SCALE Y w 100' . {60 f•, I; _ :an.,• %i .7=00 2 {7001 0 e - 42 + . •lt~!:. 7100 cwat ':t' ;~,t 967040 is ` r utA ! e w~o ~D R Q ` : ';i I 2000 SW TRAM -c- SUMMIT RIDGE 1 STREET k • " a n v; ' ' i' n a ~'1' 1:'• "w Vp w •`4 6000 - :'yI r.: e»' °0e04700` 0000 f IT W m%. 't,',~••% ,t..'\;. •:w •r, 4'/,ti,' 11l w'~'.~ et 1 62 - '%f•;% •;y:~~::•,••:, ,•%''F /':t'•';i 6600 31 M 30 •`r,'' !•'•'!f, r, t : . V. Y. 7=00 •'%r, I~.:\ FONADDRJONALMApa visi70UA wiastmAT _ ~..;ti•'n;r `.r:\, ssoo~ ~ ':t 'r, x trrN.eo,NeaAlnOtoe.or.~re W. U, •d7, 7 afe.P • P =ego ! {100 .~r~ ; t K',• 'A\.ir . 2100 ' Fd^ 600 27 r r.' A,r. ,rc r`~tfC i i 9!!' y • . yC;~ t . id9 .II r: {Y M; r 1ti %4 r• A O : i • i N00 ••r'. • y'' ,'i , ;i r 1 Y X 3= :•r:, y.,. , r DA 26 x ~l?!tl'':•t t,' r,,. •~•r.;~..~r tii~.',M•.' ;r~iy~'i Q •'~•Yr,• '•%'.1 1200 J M00 u 'r• . .r: D; ; ; ,~,,,r'• .,py+y L V . , v 78400 8400 , Q... y,/:r r.\.'. '')a;':`i''1:' 10 Z 24 It •'.K `Y,'•' ~;~„it i\Y`C ' ;i (i ..^r : 'C,": •'T•''r:' 7100' 4700 ',\y(~,• ':1';r' • .f~, wwrr tt 2= x •y C&rIWsd TWOb FW. 281090A v' '•i ri •:t'a'x ;C''> 1 16pp `r r•'r••.1•~ •,ti :i~ It 7600 ANA - U .r~.,.+.~, rt•T'.L+ 17 w. iW M~ P i•. ^I :t • 200 2400 P7, 16W p~ :t„ b`• :r ,•t~,,t - . `J:•>: 7400 tl00 1 1100 r. • , , . • M MNBe7a2eT 1 r . r • t'l •K l,' ' t-re-ti••~:t.iC +-s•.+ •r,i✓y:y;'.c r ,.Y. '''r.: {r;• T ® 7t ® 9'I O n PLOT DATE: January 20, 2005 y t rr r, X. i• 's''a"%; ,K. :f: FOORAgSE M P R pSES •'t n aY 1e , •'s , ` •'y^ % ' •y . rt NLyj$Q ~•.i ^ ~;)c •',;r is%:• fOR OHE US l R • tY : ♦ti~Mab:;•' i ! .!Pd•.•, i ':a'~ bfpwu a6,...raawr•trO'M•aan.eP-,..k w •,q. ' :i ,ti ''u'•:i v'•'1i ,'i ;t ~'y;' 'ts, • is :y •'i ,x',.yera„,i .I': .'nAb. • •:rt:fit asuwe•rw.u.0'.wwr.aeerr.wmaa •':i';\''V^ ,;~'e"T n \ 1" +t' PaN,rAwO•eeutlNea nnr muutn.ggP,ww r r i •t:•'.~:• r'r' 'r •:y' `:r ann~: ':i ~ Y' 7i bMrodNMi,lPtrla ~.6 A. 2S 1 09DA 2S1 09DA OIpL1N09 - _ - of TIGARD OEOORAPHIC INRORMATTON SYSTEM F-. VIQN,VY _ R !C W ZCA2005-00001 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS 3 ' T TUMNV ANNEXATION DR. PgP v 9 ~ r 1 _ f aeFF aeHO Po ~ o ' _ . Tigard Area Map II I~~I'I I III h ' 4N 0 100 - 200 300 400 Feel - _ - - 1'• 310 feel ' City of.Tigaid Information on this map Is for general location only and _ should be verified with the Development Servkes Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 http:/hvww.cI.Ugsrd,or.us CITY OF TIGARD,'OREGON , . 1 ORDINANCE NO.2005- 'AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 2.68 ACRES, APPROVING WILSON RIDGE ANNEXATION (ZCA2005-00602)9 AND WITHDRAWING. PROPERTY FROM 'THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, . WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL. DISTRICT. WHEREAS,'the City of Tigard is'.authorized by. ORS 222.120(4)(B) and 222:170 to initiate an annexation upon.receiving consent in writing froma majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and written consent from. owners of more than half the land in the- territory proposed to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS".222.120(5) and, 222.520 to withdraw properties which -currently lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Pairol District, Washington County,Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting ;District #1, Nand the Washington County Vector Control District upon. completion. of the annexation; and WHEREAS; the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on August 9, 2005 to, consider the annexation of two (2) parcels of land consisting of 2.68 acres and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the" Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District; Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington CountyStreet Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS; pursuant to ORS 222.520(2)., the City is` liable. to the Water District for certain debt, obligations, however, in this instance "the Water District has no debt for the. City to assume; therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09; ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing 'on the issue. of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington. County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;. and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524; the City must -declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County. Urban Roads 'Maintenance District, Washington County Street" Lighting -District #1, and the. Washington County Vector Control District by Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning most closely. conforming to the County zoning; and • WHEREAS, the current zoning district is R-7, an. existing City zone that has, been. adopted by the County and the zoning after annexation'. would remain R-7 so that no zone change is necessary, and by annexation the Comprehensive. Plan of the City of Tigard goes into effect; and ORDINANCE NO. 2005- ZCA2005-00002 Wilson Ridge Annexation Page 1 'of 2 WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 and has been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating annexations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION '1: The Council adopts the staff report and the document entitled "Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222" as findings. In addition, Council adopts the document entitled "City Attorney Findings in Response to Comments" as additional findings.of fact. SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in the attached Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit 11" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #l, and the Washington County Vector Control District. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council; signature by the Mayor and posting by the City Recorder. SECTION 4: City staff is directed . to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation, includingfiling certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities. SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the . Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads. Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2006. SECTION 7: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 52005. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 52005. Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as.to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE NO.'. 2005- ZCA2005-00002 Wilson Ridge Annexation Page 2 of 2 ► EXHIBIT A . Wilson Ridge ZCA200 40002 h:a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 328-027 GRAHAM ANNEXATION f JOB NO. A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE ,,A WEST; WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING. AT THE NORTHEAST, CORNER OF LOT' 13 OF'THE PLAT OF "MOUNTAIN GATE BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ;THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED DOCUMENT NO. 2004-06529; THENCE• ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PROPERTY AND' SAID' LINE EXTENDED, NORTH 01 031'37" EAST 132.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE' NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY= LINE•OF S.W..BULL •MOUNTAIN'ROAD {COUNTY ROAD NO. •2515) LYING 20.00 FEET, RIGHT-ANGLE MEASURE, NORTHEASTERLY, OF; ' THE CENTERLINE;'THENCE ALONG SAID,RIGHT=OF-WAY LINE SOUTH•59020'07'.' EAST 472:32 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH, THE NORTH ERLY'EXTENSION:OF WESTERLY. RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SW 133RD AVENUE LYING.,25.00 FEET, RIGHT-ANGLE MEASUREWEST OF THE, CENTERLINE OF SW 1-33RD. AVENUE;,THENCE ALONG SAID EXTENSION AND WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY" LINE SOUTH 00°31.'25".EAST 192.98 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, OF THE PROPERTY. DESCRIBED IN DEED DOCUMENT 1 NO. 2000-04259; ,THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PROPERTY, AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED DOCUMENT NO. 2000-14685 NORTH 890. .43'44" WEST ;402.59 FEET TO A POINT LYING 10.00. FEET RIGHT ANGLE MEASURE EAST OF THE EAST,LINE OF THE PLAT OF- "MOUNTAIN GATE': `;,THENCE SOUTH 010 31'-37" WEST 928.57-FEET PARALLEL .TO THE EAST,LINE OF "MOUNTAIN GATE AND "MOUNTAIN GATE NO.2" ;.THENCE LEAVING SAID. LINE' . NORTH , 880 22' 19", WEST - 10.00' FEET TO A 'THE SOUTHEAST 'CORNER LOT 64, "MOUNTAINGATE NO.2";, THENCE , ALONG- THE' AFOREMENTIONED * PLAT LINES, NORTH 01'6..31'37" EAST 1213.81 FEET TO'POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 3.104 ACRES.:.. . THE BASIS OF.BEARING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION.IS WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEY - NO. 22,110 N:\ proj\328-027\Word\LEGAI DESCRIPTION_GRAHAM.doc. Plaza West -Suite 230 - 9600 SW. Oak Portland -Oregon 97223 Office 5Q3 452-8003 - Fax 503 452-8043. . www.aiphacotnmunity.com 2S:1 09AC ' '2S 1 09AC- l n. .u. ;>t ''u; :y.A.J•u • •y~:; ,u,••u'••u'tu'' !:YI'''.;~•J:i~',; u: , ,;i ti„ J:, :u,. f.', tV. of _ \ "hnlj Yr'.~• • x.i :r G r,.arleG::._ 1••r%.,~' ~R}}~1, F r r I . : _ W 1 ^q~,'(111 ' { S1. •.r/ ~yy, : 4 •11• "r:''+;., ~''M.(MAv+ t, 'Y•r •"Wpi11j1j'1 .-~i.~,11 ' 3.1,~, ~ ',r•" ~"f, ~ t, 'N• 'A~,' - - 1,^ - l~' 111h C .y.; 1j~i• ,I;. tit:^.t;: ,f:= y.: - 3.. •.••',rJ, W 11:~ ii`.•;Lf ":~,~t - ant • m , r; ';c '~.T:f ' u:•:y? ,y. ''3;'''li y' ,\'','1 1: i 1:r a j, , :.v'41r. 141, •,i . t r, ,'.'L:.wl:.. '•r` • ('y,4 > ''•f'' 'Y, T"'!~j,• j J., r;'iru' r'' Z a:: )t91 lnlypl ~:{T, , c :.i':3,y ,x' p : po >,f'~ . w it: y, ~'3` ;r,"~;'. alt' :i :ti';J;''1: ;r,":(''r„y►;•;,r Q J, %L' .y., u,•u• yr• - y :1• 11'" ri•'N '3 •.S; V• 1200 i~ Q 'J' •"'~v J, r z ' •J: .,K r,ri, 1311 , fea., 5 ra y'I~i .J•' } ~'{M;, I n .a'. ~'>t'' i :t,.' a' ' wL.•. il(i . Npryr~ : iL N, \ . I` '•i:'''\ T', •.t~'f 1 ,/1111 .r !l,•'Y''•T ,J•'' ''Y ':1. Y,' 3( r~ 1~,',: 5~'','1'. j(:: .1 A~ I r\f~•' 1(I ~•J; 'lJ0 ,A\' :l l:i'.. •3:'':\ :i' < •'+t •'x:.' "rV' rr, 'rl;';Y. Y: •S / ,:'''Y. ,A'"~ :t' r~ : 3'A~( •.4. • . , ':i •;r' ~'r'' ' ~ ~ ''3(~• ~J ' x; ~}t ,v;'' a : ' p ~ , y. : 4~ , i cS y 3.`%i , ( • •r, ..K'')t" ''7 • ;v , S li ~.ti 'Si A - :J :i•'.Y~,'tri~ .,t a ~ L ,:'r, a , • ~~r ;~~~+~:::fqY: ~i1}~!',':' r,r, ».~i .('p•\ ~y' ,r~,.~' •x~ ~.;'~r ' ~'~r~t:r• ,r' ;'~'1,iee~}:;''r,' ~ •i' : 2lu'•' 3: b: , t u - - _ ,r':i'',\J`' :i~,,. + '1: a"1 K?'~,r y a ~urWt~(•M~►;''rI 1 1 ' - 1. ~ '1:'• .ti 1N' _ r :r •ll 'L(' • ' ' • _ ,~Mi _ - 1 A r , • ' ti~0er 111 ':i t ; 'ui; rn«+a _ t„ ~.u aJ"b WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON • I V 'A,. 'r :y;A',.:',Y ' I - _ wewA1`Avi''Mt'iw"C :ri a+,., , O ''3: '•SC SWIM NEIA SECTION 09 T28 R1 W W.M. - 't ~ : .x Mo y,L ':r i' •r1' w(.°~" A ~1i:•, M SCALE V - too' ar, ' •ri •.r I X00 UN~, •'r 1200 T''R .w•;'~~I,w,•'~C'''3:, .I _ 'l~~t, , 'aoK - ~ ~iL`'r .lt M Mi' J LI. hf v;~.yr. •i%'P: :'•3(•':) - w ,Y ' ^'4G~I~':' •'r,=V, Y,yt,•; ,v r,A SW BIRDSV - Z . n 2 =to .~~1 a , , fL."'% J a .r''y a goo v R 11f.o l~.jip~ J' ~e is . - .i ^'3 .r 'ad r t \A~Ir Ar low - q4r ~'q Y ~4'~V f tem 23741, u ak 1 2000 r' X Y,I %'J~~,,y~!,,•I,✓f,~ y- ]P.:J,' ~a+•r• *y. •.t4 /oB M01flONAL MAPS VISIT OUR WEBWEAr .,x, 1My.1,-./y,/~''q,~ 6 ''A, •r r; 3(, rr; 0(oau w,. O ,jai-: ~y'~6,,J, :`:tl,,'~.1,'~:1x• (olAq •eoo IrMMfI - ,"'I'4j Y, rN}''r , ~~•'~•r'i:'1`3. i~: ,~:r:i 010 0 ~t :ye,: nK teoo ~~1 : $~}~K 1 @1xr F~~a(Vru. ~ O ~A , • Ik ism ~~,L\M qmN" Stq\N ~N~ I^7( \r(/ '1 ; yY..'" 1. SJS -N ~i,P/ r - tjT- - - Y•.:q;'{'.,~;% ;4i14.ti ..7/ 3t "A+• r^..i i~t:•^ ,xwal,' Ile N n r•,,ytr" 700 O na t~.: a.~; ;r,; , c {y fp: ,i' ~6'' S:d?sF± V. J.. ,Y. '•;1: le1K 47 ~ y~ 't J r . ''u .~i.; , ry Jr• Lt's .r..~ I I,F '',y •r 3 ;.'''Ii ;l: ; rr ~i~l, ~wA~3n~3. .*S.:ti',' ~d%••0''(; p ',r, ...,rir M - M.aNy _ '''x;\:v •;•''xI r ~1r ' r' , ~''•:3 ti'Y`: .7Y 'CQ,'~'i _ - ` N xY ' : 7Q teoo J~•'r'•t3 'r.aotEv;°u i\A i roi3i3(r (`:'SCri ai Uai~r c.~,7tL~ ^ 3 / V W K .J ' 'lt;')c ; 1. u 1 x 1, fir, ;r J4, S ~ 2100 • 'r ; ,1 :r.+''.'.'t, r, p ~ _ . UIM SW RHETT COURT A 'U :i `;r is : _ r,*~;',f~'!Q~ W 'diap,::: - 1400 ■t ;1:,' ' jt, ;'t _ _ - •d'', ~~y J luuaq i..~e JIM T C2 X4' I O' p1~. „ ,v, , wal : ' Vii'''' ,Sf r, x ti tt:oo 'r, , ~;x PLOT DATE: Novbmber 30; 2004. f•0SASSESSMENrjPUAPQISES '',:teA' '':c~i 4 , ,~`•:';•;v;•' :J;~~r'•:•t~•~r:ri,x~~x _ NLLy pp(~p pELyuV r; 4 ; P!;i f I p .r; ,'ri r 1 u FOR OTHER USE iY' 4 - I' K - '"'yJy vF,r~ ( '•.r Mat,rw l~NWUgWMPMMtlnIa~(nb#r6YMs I ar•mnwmnns d+rwewaMrnaewr tmrw ' .y a.,rria,+'0'es.,rrl,a Iwwen,ltdpr tpa'9~aw Z ,~:t',tyr'9!~''•A;ti, ,.~,'•.`~.+-.~-.~:i.~-++')~.-.. r'~,f''i:'~ •'•,l~ .3-.--~,.--•---••-+.'i Y.~ ~J:: x• ,r~~, X ,~ii:ii'~T~-rt-..-,..~~ •I(.:Ii: ,:%'''Y'•:L'::(.' %''I:•.r:• ~r~ :7:''':('• I '3f X, Y 'lr 'r.''',i 'ii .,11,. •i *.r t•x,, ,33,., ,x,.•31,, ''x'•'>: 7"n"v'':•i u'''u ! _ ate; , :•ri _ 2S 1 09AC 2S 1T09AC - ,notitwoe _ _ _ - - is 9z o * o c y-. Now 1 °0:11 0 ,y Al Q 11,,11 G EENFIELD DR y 13~H AV . m C1NZ~ j,MS 4 3/t s _ Q Npl • 1 1~J Sb, . 7 Q d CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 2005- AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 20.75 ACRES, APPROVING ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL/SUMMIT RIDGE AN (ZCA2005-00003)9 AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.- WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(B) and 222.170 to initiate an annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and. written consent from owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on August 9, 2005 to consider the annexation of 38 parcels and portions of 18 :additional parcels of land consisting of a total of 20.75 acres and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the. Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County. Urban.Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #l, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City. is liable to the Water District for certain debt obligations, however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption.-of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing, on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County. Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington . County Vector Control District by Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Development' Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning most closely conforming to the County zoning; and WHEREAS, the current zoning district is. R-7, an existing City zone that has been adopted by the County and the zoning after annexation would remain R-7 so that no zone change is necessary, and by annexation the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard goes into effect; and ORDINANCE NO. 2005- ZCA2005-00003 Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge Annexation Page 1 of 2' .WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with'the requirements bf Metro 3.09 and has been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the Comprehensive. Plan and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating annexations; and WHEREAS, the City Council. has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that. withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable: service districts is in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Council 'adopts the staff report and the'. document entitled "Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222" as findings. In addition, Council adopts the document entitled "City Attorney Findings in Response to Comments" as additional findings of fact. SECTION 2:. The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in the attached REVISED Exhibit "A" and shown in REVISED Exhibit "B" land withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County' Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District. SECTION 3: ' This ordinance shall ,be effective 30 days after its passage by, the Council; signature by the. Mayor and posting by the City Recorder. SECTION 4:. City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the. annexation, including filing certified copies of the.Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as required bylaw, and providing, notice to utilities. SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2006. - SECTION 7: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 12005. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 52005. Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE NO. 2005- ZCA2005-.00003 Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge Annexation Page 2 of 2 Revised Legal Descriptions and Map of Annexation Territory, for ZCA 2005-00003 - Alberta Rider/ Summit Ridge A tract of"land situated in the Section 9, Township 2 South Range 1 West Willamette Meridian described as follows: Commencing at a point.'northwest corner of the subdivision plat of Arlington Heights; ' thence N 01° 57' 48" E.a.distance of 13.03 feet;, thence'S 88 04' 30" W a distance of 625.20 feet to The True point of Beginning of the Annexation; thence S O1°' 56'56" W' a distance of 426.22 feet; thence S 88° 56' 17" E a.distance of 212.83 feet; thence S 02° . 00' 00" W a distance of 274.61 feet; thence N 88° 49' 24" W a distance of 336.20 feet; thence S 01° 15' 49" W a distance of 475.68 feet; thence S 87° 59' 46" E_ a.distance of 303.50 feet; thence S O1° 15' 46".W a distance of 561.57 feet; thence N 87° 59' 46" W a distance of 303.50 feet; thence N 01° 15' 46" E a distance of 561.57; thence N 87° 59' 46" W a distance of 846 feet to the easterly right-of-way of SW 133rd Ave; thence N 01° 33'.29" E, along said right-of-way, a distance of 50.00 feet; thence S 87° 59' 46" E a ' distance of 221.31 feet; thence N 01° 21' 36" E a distance of 140.04 feet; thence S 87° 58' 20'' E a distance of 220.90 feet; thence N 01° 15' 49" E a distance of 1185.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way'of SW Bull Mountain Road; thence S 59° 18'.32" E, along said right-of-way,. a distance of 433.01 :feet; thence N 88° 04' 30" E, along said right-of- way; a distance of 158.32 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom the North 277 feet of the East 277 feet of that property described in . Document Number 99114503. ` 2S 1 09AC 2S" 1 09AC D .".".~..ruelww;xrr, •9. ~.r.y''.~~3 •.10 ,.'I•!, ' 1 . . .~I _ Rf 4` 3'.8/' ♦j~ r C 1'. 'ibrgv .'I taF11.TV4 _ .w%~-A. m W 'ryyl~,4 .'4. , .r•. -7 7 !y~~~I,7p 'tl.'';'•i.. -++..a,..,J E'.,,j I_ III, 2.: Z F.f-.• 88 ~ , nia prpli - .LNa _-i. H c SLR r. C f...I b.~''•' ' w s f . nt. ~ M„kqv ''llryl :!i,.~ ,.71~ ~I."~I'. ~I O _30• ,R W ne ~D pp~ I. 1. I:` 1 1 :1=J x 0<4 7700 ,13>IG III, : r-;:' ':~:•E•: ,:I•. .•:,/SK 1!. a W I nr ,.I J~. JI ] a .K ( \ W' IIIX $y' -e off.. fv 1 "R 1 +1111 ~~~''~~~~:tOa K`~'~~•, ~ S r ",2$.^ rl It:'~. alt) 1. n "p~K'^'•^•.. I . .%L ::.c:• :i_:~{.: °rm°u}:.~' . :3 f, _ .~wnl~ ' r: w I w Q "._.~,!y 'I= I • ..1 ;•I.., }f~,-~,~,.-~ }}Fa 7i°° syi. if.~ti' -r w _ dQ rm 8{F •a'~\y~' I' ~'l O 3 .ooK a, "I I•r. a lI . tia~uc I I ij+tM ti WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON .t~~ I - + - a.': ''^,~`.w•, O 1 . SW1/4 NE1/4 SECTION 09T2S R1WW.M. _ a - 1300 ^w-+~~a.hv..,...vnl~..• .,3 i .._I _ J ^•M I ' _ n a. 7B•L-„1 SCALE t-_100• - I AaK Np IA 7400. 770 M I q `f $d aeK rt - .k~ mK 8I .I>i .n~5:x:81s! ,4 .•38.31• •32: '33..:31; .35 '36`:31 N O I ~'1e ~ ~ I e ~ ~ \ v I I ~ ~ ~-asi ~ ~ 'i~'~^-1 v,..-•~»~'!aL~ ~ f B, S s. '3 2 1, ~ .B. L'` „ - ma. j i ao° I SW BIRDSV i O \ ssN , - w -7500 Z m-.>r', . .I •~,;._~,..,_N I3y \1B' :JT'.78 .75> . 4'. `.13~ '1B. 400 > LLI 1900 \ '7 3 ` an)K aa43.^ r56 ;j 19 2I o. f _ b e\ 'n•~ _ 14 23 fV e.•'...I w ; ' Q L66K oga 23-74 / °,f X30: z9 2B u ~e z3, 30 / }~~y 1 S C g.. 1 s 33 3i 1s rs~s~ F t. 2ooooK ?S ,V e~/w .,,a ' 3e 1f` 3z 777 41 ` y, wm 1 afe.ro 71 i 1e 1 .8" 6 1 .r3 2 1, y 8 67 FOR.ADDITIONAL MAPS VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT - - a .,yN 1www.eo.wail,lnplon.or.ua 53 3 Goo s ° F . sa.' xtI i. r//, tsoo G 7 Aki'.: BliL O ~ax(c~ Q~4+ x,.. GGGIIII LF ..a• 6: t-------------- -p-_. rT A'RE4 TO-13E ,r.., : a BD p:. • .`y as 3. tt ~ t4 „s ~ - ■4 i OC sl ^ e >m°~:• " " 700 - 6R? . 1700 "Go 8 - s ' .iia F2 N 1 6ro .es - te00 wi'o J iy taaK 7,00 j..' 00 . ~a t2~$ 78 otter r-&Fcj Is °Ijt .pq- :A 9 uo"e i 67 - - ..°aye~°': G.►'l /122CQ0r1rl~1('l/ SW RHETT `n4~c i S 2' ! fItI1C-/Qi /1(i"`U/1 y,s :000RTmn> y - - S ~I ow5 G.fGw tf5 . rI:.'.~ " 641 $g i4oo > ate. I :r ,OaK Ji79u,_.f . 17 CARTOGRAPHY I~.. asnaa I I _ 1200 2 84 .+1300 . T "tom ➢b Q fl aa_ re °0"J'e' I «„T - ' PLOT DATE: November 30, 2004 I u7K I FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY- DO NOT RELY ON A sss. a 1 8 I' FOR OTHER USE " fj e 1 it00 I.•. Map Na alswnaMWrv ar+r.,r.~wwat>a.a.n.eawe is~ ~ /6 ~.!"r, _ I - C`' I t77K O.Q.,,t re MnbRro m'y LrOrn.YMvCCil.W motl harem a.Mbbmaan a i J TIGARD' 2S1 09AC 2S 1 2S 1 09AD 2S 1 09AD W 1 Ji a,iew" '2g'k,• • .7"r"'• ~ior: '•Y, TTh;4 m N 160^ W :e;~':k• •:('.r' :1 41 'tewi•• !O :s.}AGr ,1700 1100 \U ~9•; x`00: %i.< 10 t0 tL X31 7io0 t'1.00 p25 300 35 e 'a:•: •,t '•I 'm5ey.;>t•,r;•;•i ° ! C •,r '~y :rvw• LN 4 ua, ••:riw+avavswMt : ~ ; ;,f i<r - ~ a•• .a',4 ""^°Y vrr«.t.. '~,.%'•,.i.,e";.~': •;;tN, h''• ~.QvaC • .n~'"gryr aeao 1600 SW C ;rt: v 7900 .•y. 00e0 C 500 ",';r 'rt'•.. 't• .:i•: ° 1000 a fil ut e4 613 Ae l Alb .,1, :~4!g;•''mM. •:tJiK >.liFjr' ;ihi•,. •IMS~; n eeoo o uoo v 1;: _ .r... aeoo,~{ ~tt9 13 \ 24 727 00 !7 9 BE mw a{Op 0 40 °700 5700 IAis O 4 30 ° u 100 SAC G' a JILL l1164 2'oolt~ad.e a'0 SEWASHI 114 NEn(; 41/8OEC70N 08 T2$flO N O 1W W.M G ~SCALE 7'100' e4oo w.w.. 100 ae0 1~0 32 2 .20t:0 4 w /iAe r' 3 f_ ST Q r; SWBIRDSVIEW o 26 ft~ittw.wt. ,W16, aw M3N« r Z I rl L) LLJ J,' - • e ; -7G,y1- '~...w r in 'OjO0 2soo y C'J <r , C'' O .•.:+isc' 1100 3a ~ ~y ~ 15 - Q • ~ X 22 23-74 400 N ,aoo~` !~3 • : ,A fL ir~r~ f 1.11 AO AlfAC •iy, 7, *.S X, 7500 !3°°° a ,7 A loco to. m 3560 29oeDu w 100 M~, 2400 (A - 3 0 pitAO : •r 21 2500 1700 20 Is • ; ~ e ~ - , ..aa...aua..tatt q -aw., w.rem,« SW t Y FORA00?ZONAL MAPS V/SfTOUR WESSMAT ...aawaa•~'t%[:ttt...ttt..:.ta,..1 MOUNTAIN `t A ~r«««,«~»°~.w««,» «t t « 'r,•'r%}:%•t www.w.waMln4ron.a.01- •`,,M, a ; - r< t;• .««F~.«t««~ ,w~«,«1«,grx".ren".^, . a.r w. 5165 u. uM i',Y:',11 th; y;;a r, ~ ,,r,` .My„ry„ x«NM««,«« I 4100 43001 4200 6 5 7400q qI ''Y ,''•,1ib10'• .8B•.;• •i nyr• _ . I D 4100 IooO 7 6 4 ,e eta v.Ci:,!':r:.x,`Ci~: •13Q ?lC',( AD t SW, ,WINTERVIEW DRIVE 1 ill, 4500 1500 . • ••rc : ti•; ,t : v.., r: +aoo Ieoo 5400 + 7000 71 e♦9< _ tuAC uoo 5 I ° i fo f~ n a2 R ai G •'y' ,'•'t • x, 'A t 1100 ':t' •,.'i, ,,Y y?r~ uoo I °ibo °t4. ..u w ea00 p2 ' + % CM0s0edTWObFor. 48104A0 r :c, 1 :r we' `'s; 120013011500,170D,5W1,ROOA501A551,1105,~,01, I~AS 23-78 ,I ,50500 0 4 :,:,u, ~I 5000 A D: 7200 {Sb Slv ✓12 r eeoo 73.0. :ti, 5300 L OO~R AI.jF I..,; I. I „5400 iF 54 ; t 'L 34 I e ~ 17 6200 ,.w a ` r' f'•• ,.iail,!u •',ti - !I I I • all- 6400 •j.~j'I 8 >S 8 8 P41 ®P9 4 x. NOW 16 J~ 5400'. 6700 6700 20 •(~GPP ♦ eaoa 27 400. Iy,, lx + ,t Y x ® 4 B ® n r •,c, I I 28 PLOT DATE: July 09, 2002, °700 FOIiASSESSME 35 W T PURPOSES v p~Ly NLOR STHEA USE ON _ i• 0000 ~ b(. ~ x :t w.ouwaYaewu.e5rwws.5,•wmon.e,5..andra' 24 X X, ~ahW^ e, 5400 11;0 0,,:,; p5m.n kMnnn OSYWmy eSfNEka.Wmat t 22 `r• r5W4 •.,5a' 'y' 'At-4 '1M,i.Nr' q.wnfpoy.RrSOiA,rM,a IH•w mvu.M •pptivlwm p ' a' - e b•.w won Nan 5 00 A o.. a,wa .OSrt , w•, . p 1f i 4 •9 Mr •U IC J .Ae" r S l •E 10 ^e%Ar% TIGARD ' 'nc + nnnr% 2S 1 0 2S 1 09DB• •r V1 p"a 1 / , V. R% d a~ S bA ..f. ` ww ~ i•`• x r1m. 'r, ''._t11~!_•"..~..-'~..'••• W :'fNrN~ ,'1 N' 20 400 ` ~ n ~ •--'i-' W+rsii~:'•..~ i t _ ~1 . i ee ~ t , .,~a,•.,i~g ; ' : !f `J q 7000 1 2e0 4 e t 'sm1°v`•' .,1 VjN,•r•lfl'~~ r;hHM. '~f!~~ :+IIN:., ,:~i~:: 00 t" 1 eo 7 P7• ' tia r ~ 2e - m • +~.rra, , a tip`. 7+ q a q i ';`i a' .',.'•,•'r _ -eoo ee~~ c na ee .c~•`•:er" y;3:•:1L.~, "/r „Jw w r r W' a„Ae y :.Ii.h fy 4 e w S ZE EST-tTY1 v b, w WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON V,7 Q i uTAe 77 eooo g 34 7 00 ~;,°nt ; ' .p • NW 1/4 8E1 /4SCALE SECTION 010 S R1 W W.M. d' `'.I.rmda,.''• a ~ a'ti'i: ~ 7,•:: MiO.u! ' .Nu too .11 AC Lu .'4 i0oo 1900 ~j /7 ff 12! ':t~ f'- - 6050 - %44 A* ' 7d'•.•Al ti w {4~ri/ . 1 ''i U r. 191: ,1~,„ / SW Yt, SUMMIT . ~ , a )160•: - ~"T~ ~p , ~is61 ....L,1,1 •J: f. 1100 . 1200 t~ ~c tw Ae t„AC I: c O „mmba•' fD 149, m 'C•• P011 ADOMMUL NAPS MIT OUR WEDWEAT .7 Itlt, ^ 1D ;,~:{;:I ; : wlM eo.l,e,Afnplona,.ue 23.78' ;r•'11::t'•'it:•:: ;li •'K ~.8~r: u.96f;,; ; `o1A:.. OC \ tuAp O ;i ,:rp a 1 r _ i.4 P+C'.''t" }.'t'RX(•: •.D.%r .t'9~ji :SIQ'r; c',il'~f,'„'. 6' •q ' n° 1e0D r 1700 1400 !•y r',; r •+1, Z N 14 ; p taAO ti»a00e an.e URAG 'J! 'it . ;y,i~... , ii.,a(J•~, ,.`/.,,,xa. • - )t• - 200 J - ,y , r:•:,+.' it ' K" - U~Ae. " ,.t,', a'1,'` •.,.f "."Yf ,`n' ;.✓•f'S:`, .%".'•'r,'t', A.~l,. 14,9 , 'rV ~ /',.'t ^ is , ✓ / . \ : { ).'f / I' / . F : . • • - 'r,' 'J; r,'',. •'.K . CAno@11ed Teibq For: 2810906 _ nru :r .181 , , , bc' ;t'' `;r:, t I+; s;,',K'• not. X in Ac 1300 1600 UdAe 10 aw" :x: (93 sm (a nt :+P 3 -r `;r;l''',\ ";,'ri%'; T a2 X~a.9 •8 on s r'',_'' iic A l+t'. 3 h PLOT DAM JenU.ry 13, 2005 :-Yt• 'e~'' "'ma' r,-r "`ti':`'`-' lw.ytt w.w - FORASSESSM N RPOSE3 ONLY-Dp ~fp~ Ly ON teT: '1' t •t• ;rt :w :1 -r=i-a,-n=:f 4 RUSE OTHE t.• . y; enarw em u n r'J•"':1 'r'•'r.'''ti i'• a t e rr >,OwrAtnA10 •li'`~ ''r,', ''r,"i~':iJ ':r'•'r:'• t' er a',r',A,Aw .t b a'rt rwP11lo,n M Ir,ow M I.MI,nA n y .1 ' •'4 warn ei4. I 7tr M l.S,. b eefineaAa PMw mn,tnM ^I Q 'rP mm r,IMam b a.r. mnn Y•, .t dd ! y;. a " J•i rmsv ms's: • •s;;l a,~•a '•r 'r: so -ar • tom':•t 2 abC..•a! ''t 7r '.`.~`3i~: 1:•. ..•.i'' . ~~i7 G` A AAI'1D ~1 t~ ~ i1A,1 D. 2S 1 090A - 2S 1 09DA pop , w, -3 ~•2 S W 300 pr a , 'r eoo : M.v' MC 11• 0 4 atOPN ~ ',N e E ,'Mw«Mwn:M~ I ,•Y•' % 111' t• EMp , 'a 11 I 7 - MC. m •m i )eoo ~ a ,~.,P ' 8' - \v'• .•E!'~J"'~• ~'w^ ;•eta , bi '.92• .J• 'et'• `•Ci~ 66 , 6300 '•LLl 1400 I y •-3r~,~ I q 42 > 300 Z: bA Y.Lrea: • ..•a _ :,4 bEw ( 3r•!`' ¢ 1 1800 \ 08 .1.' 9 eooo 3 ale • • ~ r~ , ~ c eC 7 a ' 7 6 ,•1/ a tad: ) 6 •'D e77 s ' ii • 1o-'- ee i~R^ ' _ xr" .'e• 0 1700 q. L" r !,'W .•/Mw'.~:~ v ' ig. % 0(' 7 6 1-. E 17 i 40 a \Yj1'Y"'•' `~w~ 1700 \ /j'~ - ~'Nris+ _ : •r. , rai' s. i.. •inlPi!: f n(P.'. 9100 . J1444 _ . as _ 9? .w J~ 00 - . ,,a.V; ,aoic;l,..:..... ~1,, ~ W, 61{: K a.r 1, 1 1900 63 / 4 q ro ,~-C 0'I•0~; ? y q' 11 R ' ~ 1600 i J 39 1'1t•R'J .C :IP''•.;p! ; 7600 q 6i w 4 gy t7 ( 9 6300 i - 1300 iy 60 q"`••.. 1 -I' ;Igla' •l 'itilvl~•''np':;. ;.ee:• :.ww' ( ae ( e,oo E aa•~ 1j .tJ:.'.t'-, 'i.. mm -j TRACT.C. ;ie 1700 • poi • HAZELCREST 9 ~w 1feK a u , 'j rte... 44 ~J too -~:`::-'i;, (':,''•'`;~?;f: , - G 7100 1800 LL 6100 \,.Je!'.. v~E "'w ao 0~ a;-••- - _ ry •V!w.arw: IP.>. Lg~k.ae i 3 S iieaoo 7303100 w ( 1000 76 41 0: C7 1200 7e 0 ) 1100 ' 1000 100 ;UMN~IEW ST - ' " ; . NEt 4 58114 SOECT ONU09 TT s wEw A. . 811 q [ Y 347 t - ua_ _ ~1k 47 48 T. 7; y . - ~'y".5 000 f SCALE - +oo' ( e3 ,I•. _ ,e 43 d/700 a4 1.` ' 77 ( ae:eP baee _ ."'6 1 1100 a2 3 ' j" ! f v, • is aiisur ~ 57001 3 u - , R i~U' •9 8400 QQ 7200 a 7100 F A 314 6 as •L 00 . _ I N r 11 ' a 49 I (n I Be 44 rL . 79 - 'k w ~a tip ( ae - 3a ( . 'Nttr:tir.:1.+1.tr..JMw~ SW y SUMMIT a (RIDGE a STREET TR:R°c 1 6100 1 68. eaoo 81001 e~' maw W. g a~E *,1 0, Z'V l} WNW 7 GC' ~vo . 6a o - rl~irowl; 1. y " 3100 . - 7 I a 8 LLl ~ ~ caoo 1 POR ADDITIONALMAPS VISIT OUR WEASITCAT g.11 i'. 3800 ( -!9 :7.• - WWW,CO.WOa'Mnp(OnA6YR d J p~ tl •.P4r.. ' _ 1,00 - - 23-: •78 . 1 r „ t1. u. Ae K ,.1 966 • 3 21 O p.pI 2,00 :;1 Q - $000 u.NK 'B' ,A,,'• 3000 1 y • eEre,Pr 1..:• 7L r a: W } woo - V 3100 - `I:' Q IV - e m ~ 131 • . •'nva+c.. , . - O woo 1.4 40'• DA 0 J gg } . J. ~ 3209 1~. w 9 26 • - : - 3100 t 47 Z g 21 ~.D ( w 3400. l1' 4 _ '1, u.Eew - 11 - 200 . 1.' . . Cenee0e0T"OnFor. 26109DA 1100 E a0onoa . 13 3100 w7 i' WOO :'4''`.l''•: j: 3103 . i 3700 y JA 3, 14 1100 .,I 9ev` _ Tlne . .POINT "R • 4.02 AG" 3800' NE 3100 i 4200 4=000 1e 1a g - Assess m ant .I`• 8W STRUT w t TN,R• ~D- ._.'..~_',~,~u ,i4.~ . - - ."""~.<'";,.t:y'r;;`;r:,.;;, view >w 0130 _ " =wa~,.r:. ,8 2'a 3z ®B:.:O ®.n, 1 P DATE: LOT January 20, 2005 N a1 00 3000 w ASSES M NTPUA SES, n n PO O ON N p T RELY o L yy•R~ E E FO TH A US e. R•b ptt.. N 1 ~J .'46 '•L Enb -rem bltbf4 nMlnw not Mmes ~LD• P4Snn ery ry S :S. p ' Gnelf Oomrl.I11. WIEp LMWT M PeWb ER.rEplatl m4P ~SIYK'.' i • / h bf6N men IMnIn40dt emn -y ~ 4. Y ~ e •'neviC': Y~ ,•I ~Y is 2S 1 Ogn,a Hann - - .J SYBtEM • - W OEOORAf14 to WORMATION _ ~ ~ . ~ ! tC_AZ005-40003 V - ,w WIT _ ^ rte.. 'qN ~ m : - - . H ERTA .RIDER-SCNOOU _ ww oR A SUMMIT RIDGE SUB.. ANNEXATION 1 ra ~ _ ! ~ _ - Tpetd Area MeP ` , - - - 300 400 500 Feet 0 100 200 1"e 382 teal ^ Ciry'of Tigaczl. • - - Intonnetlon On thto map Is for general Vocation on it be vertltad A11h the DeveloPmeM Services I 13125 5w Nell aw Ttgetd, OR 67223 (503)e3q-4i71 ~t,,,M.et.06ard.Or.us A%,