Washington County - Urban Planning Area Agreement (1983) 6-13-83
EXHIBIT A
WASHINGTON COUNTY - TIGARD
URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this , : '`f day of IC-71�_ ,
19��{� by WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political subdivision ff the State of Oregon,
hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and CITY OF TIGARD, an incorporated
municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY. "
WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into
agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a
party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have authority to perform; and
WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) requires that City,
County, State and Federal agency and special district plans and actions shall
be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and
regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 197; and
WHEREAS, The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission requires each
jurisdiction requesting acknowledgement of compliance to submit an agreement
setting forth the means by which land use coordination in the unincorporated
areas within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary will be implemented; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY, to ensure coordinated and consistent
comprehensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to establish:
1 . A site-specific Urban Planning Area within the Regional Urban Growth
Boundary within which both the COUNTY and the CITY maintain an
interest in comprehensive planning;
2. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development in the
Urban Planning Area;
3. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in
the Urban Planning Area; and
4. A process for amending the Urban Planning Area Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. Location of the Urban Planning Area
The Urban Planning Area mutually defined by the COUNTY and the CITY
includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this agreement.
II. Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies
A. Active Planning Area
1 . Definition
Active Planning Area means the incorporated area and certain
unincorporated areas contiguous to the incorporated area for
which the CITY conducts comprehensive planning and seeks to
regulate development activities to the greatest extent possible.
The CITY Active Planning Area within the Urban Planning Area is
designated as Area A on Exhibit "A".
2. The CITY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning within
the Active Planning Area.
3. The CITY shall be responsible for coordinating and planning for
the provision of urban services in the Active Planning Area.
4. The COUNTY shall not approve land divisions within the Active
Planning Area which would create lots less than 10 acres in
size, unless public sewer and water service are available to the
property.
5. The COUNTY shall not approve a development proposal in the
Active Planning Area if the proposal would not provide for, nor
be conditioned to provide for, an enforceable plan for redevel-
opment to urban densities consistent with CITY'S Comprehensive
Plan in the future upon annexation to the CITY as indicated by
the CITY Comprehensive Plan.
6. Approval of the development actions in the Active Planning Area
shall be contingent upon provision of adequate urban services
including sewer, water, storm drainage, streets, and police and
fire protection.
7. The COUNTY shall not oppose annexation to the CITY within the
CITY'S Active Planning Area.
B. Area of Interest
1 . Definition
Area of Interest or Primary Area of Interest means unincorpor-
ated lands contiguous to the Active Planning Area in which the
CITY does not conduct comprehensive planning but in which the
CITY does maintain an interest in comprehensive planning and
development actions by the COUNTY because of potential impacts
on the CITY Active Planning Area. The CITY Area of Interest within
the Urban Planning Area is designated as Area B on Exhibit "A".
2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and
development actions within the Area of Interest.
3. The COUNTY shall be responsible for coordinating and planning
for the provision of urban services in the Area of Interest.
-2-
4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of
Interest subject to the following:
a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area
of Interest as a condition to the provision of urban services
for development.
b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall
not create islands unless the CITY declares its intent to
complete the island annexation.
c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other repre-
sentative means for annexation in the Metzger/Progress
Community Planning Area, which includes Washington Square,
within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the
foregoing, the City reserves all of its rights to annex and
acknowledges the rights of individualproperty owners to
annex to the City pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes.
d. Upon annexation of land within the area of Interest to the
CITY, the CITY agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to
CITY plan designations which most closely approximate the
density, use provisions and standards of COUNTY designations.
Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this designation for
one year after the effective date of annexation unless both
the CITY and COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of
annexation that the COUNTY designation is outdated and should
be amended before the one year period is over.
e. Should any land within the Area of Interest be annexed to
the CITY, the area shall continue to be considered as part
of the COUNTY Urban Planning Area for the purpose of calcu-
lating county-wide new dwelling unit mix and density as
required by OAR 660-07-030 and 660-07-035. This provision shall
apply until the CITY and COUNTY plans have been acknowledged by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
C. General Policies
1 . The CITY and COUNTY are in disagreement on at least two major
transportation issues: (1 ) the classification and use of Durham
Road between Pacific Highway and the Interstate 5 freeway; and
'(2) the need and location of the extension of Murray Boulevard
to Pacific Highway. Despite this disagreement, the parties have
agreed to a process for resolution of their conflicts and agree
not to preclude potential transportation options or road system
improvements proposed in their respective comprehensive plans,
notwithstanding their disagreement.
-3-
2. The CITY stidll include all right-of-way with „1 and adjacent to
property in current and future annexation proposals, In
addition, the CITY and the COUNTY shall reach agreement upon a
schedule and process for the surrender of jurisdiction of those
COUNTY roads currently within the city limits and those COUNTY
roads that may be included in future annexations to the CITY if
the COUNTY determines these roads are not necessary as part of
the COUNTY road system. Such an agreement shall be reached
within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement.
3. Annexations to the CITY outside the Urban Planning Area will not
be supported by the COUNTY or the CITY.
III. Coordination of Comprehensive Planning and Development
A. Amendments to or Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan or Implementing
Regulation
1 . Definitions
Comprehensive Plan, as defined by OAR 660-18-010(5) , means a
generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of
the governing body of a local government that interrelates all
functional and natural systems and activities relating to the
use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water
systems, transportation systems, educational facilities,
recreational facilities, and natural resources and air and water
quality management programs.
Implementing Regulation means any local government zoning
ordinance, land division ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or
92.046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for
implementing a comprehensive plan.
2. Except as provided in subsection (B) below, the COUNTY shall
provide the CITY with the appropriate opportunity to
participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or
adoption of the COUNTY comprehensive plan or implementing
regulations. The CITY shall provide the COUNTY with the
appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on
proposed amendments to or adoption of the City comprehensive
plan or implementing regulations. The following procedures
shall be followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and
involve one another in the process to amend or adopt a
comprehensive plan or implementing regulation:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall notify
the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, of the
proposed action at the time such planning efforts are
initiated, but in no case less than 45 days prior to the
final hearing on adoption. The specific method and level of
involvement shall be finalized by "Memorandums of
-4-
Understanding" negotiated and signed by the planning
directors of the CITY and the COUNTY. The "Memorandums of
Understanding" shall clearly outline the process by which
the responding agency shall participate in the adoption
process. If, at the time of being notified of a proposed
action, the responding agency determines it does not need to
participate in the adoption process, it may waive the
requirement to negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of
Understanding."
b. The originating agency shall transmit draft recommendations
on any proposed actions to the responding agency for its
review and comment before finalizing. Unless otherwise
agreed to in a "Memorandum of Understanding," the responding
agency shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft to
submit comments orally or in writing. Lack of response
shall be considered "no objection" to the draft.
c. The originating agency shall respond to the comments made by
the responding agency either by a) revising the final
recommendations, or b) by letter to the responding agency
explaining why the comments cannot be addressed in the final
draft.
d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given consid-
eration as a part of the public record on the proposed
action. If after such consideration, the originating agency
acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the
responding agency may seek review of the action through the
appropriate body and procedures.
e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the orig-
inating agency, it shall transmit the adopting ordinance
to the responding agency as soon as publicly available, or
if not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written
documentation is available to properly inform the responding
agency of the final actions taken.
B. Development Actions Requiring Individual Notice to Property Owners
1 . Definition
Development Action Requiring Notice means an action by a local
government which requires notifying by mail the owners of
property which could potentially be affected (usually specified
as a distance measured in feet) by a proposed development action
which directly affects and is applied to a specific parcel or
parcels. Such development actions may include, but not be
limited to small tract zoning or comprehensive plan map
amendments, conditional or special use permits, individual
subdivisions, partitionings or planned developments, variances,
and other similar actions requiring a hearings process which is
quasi-judicial in nature.
-5-
2. The COUNTI gill provide the CITY with the o,.,.ortunity to review
and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice
within the designated Urban Planning Area. The CITY will
provide the COUNTY with the opportunity to review and comment on
proposed development actions requiring notice within the CITY
limits that may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the
designated Urban Planning Area.
3. The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and the
CITY to notify one another of impending development actions:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by
first class mail a copy of the public hearing notice which
identifies the proposed development action to the other
agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest
opportunity, but no less than ten (10) days prior to the
date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the
responding agency to receive a notice shall not invalidate
an action if a good faith attempt was made by the
originating agency to notify the responding agency.
b. The agency receiving the notice may respond at its dis-
cretion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an
oral response may be made at the public hearing. Lack of
written or oral response shall be considered "no objection"
to the proposal .
c. The originating agency shall include or attach the comments
to the written staff report or supplemental thereto, and
respond to any concerns addressed by the responding agency
in such report or orally at the hearing.
d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con-
sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed
action. If, after such consideration, the originating
agency acts contrary to the position of the responding
agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action
through the appropriate appeals body and procedures.
C. Additional Coordination Requirements
1 . The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to notify one
another of proposed actions which may affect the community, but
are not subject to the notification and participation require-
ments contained in subsections A and B above:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposed actions, hereinafter the originating agency, shall
send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing
agendas which contain the proposed actions to the other
agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest
opportunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the
date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the
responding agency to receive an agenda shall not invalidate
an action if a good faith attempt was made by the origin-
ating agency to notify the responding agency.
-6-
b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda may respond
at its discretion. Comments may be submitted in written
form or an oral response may be made at the public hearing.
c. Comments from the responding agency shall be given
consideration as a part of the public record on the proposed
action. If the originating agency acts contrary to the
position of the responding agency, the responding agency may
seek review of the action through the appropriate body and
procedures.
IV. Special Policies
A. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive
planning and development actions to their respective recognized
Community Planning Organizations (CPO) through the notice procedures
outlined in Section III of this Agreement.
B. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to (1 )
amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3)
amend the text of the COUNTY development code shall be mailed to the
CITY within five (5) days after its introduction.
C. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone
land within one (1 ) mile of the corporate limits of the CITY shall
be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction.
V. Amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement
A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and the
COUNTY to amend the language of this agreement or the Urban Planning
Area Boundary:
1 . The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates the
proposal , shall submit a formal request for amendment to the
responding agency.
2. The formal request shall contain the following:
a. A statement desciribing the amendment.
b. A statement of findings indicating why the proposed
amendment is necessary.
c. If the request is to amend the planning area boundary, a map
which clearly indicates the proposed change and surrounding
area.
3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the originating
agency, the responding agency shall schedule a review of the
request before the appropriate reviewing body, with said review
to be held within 45 days of the date the request is received.
-7-
4. The CITY and the COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to resolve
requests to amend this agreement. Upon completion of the review,
the reviewing body may approve the request, deny the request,
or make a determination that the proposed amendment warrants
additional review. If it is determined that additional review
is necessary, the following procedures shall be followed by the
CITY and COUNTY:
a. If consistencies noted by both parties cannot be resolved in
the review process as outlined in Section IV (3) , the CITY
and the COUNTY may agree to initiate a joint study. Such a
study shall commence within 30 days of the date it is
determined that a proposed amendment creates an inconsis-
tency, and shall be completed within 30 days of said date.
Methodologies and procedures regulating the conduct of
the joint study shall be mutually agreed upon by the CITY
and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study.
b. Upon completion of the joint study, the study and the
recommendations drawn from it shall be included within the
record of review. The agency considering the proposed
amendment shall give careful consideration to the study
prior to making a final decision.
B. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two (2) years,
or more frequently if mutually needed, to evaluate the effectiveness
of the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary
amendments. The review process shall commence two (2) years from
the date of execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both
parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any inconsist-
encies that may have developed since the previous review, If,
after completion of the 60 day review period inconsistencies still
remain, either party may terminate this Agreement.
VI. Effective Date
This Agreement shall be effective until January 1 , 1984. During this
period, the parties shall resolve the following issues now outstanding
between them:
1 . Adoption by the CITY and COUNTY of a single comprehensive plan
for the CITY and its Active Planning Area; and
2. Adoption of development standards for streets and storm drainage
facilities consistent with and adequate to carry out CITY'S
Plan; and
3. Adoption of the attached Agreement, Exhibit "B", by the Board
of Directors of the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County.
4. Resolution of outstanding transportation issues between the
parties, including:
-8-
a. consistent street classification standards;
b. the status of Durham Road; and
c. the need and location of the Murray Boulevard Extension from
Scholls Ferry Road to Highway 99W.
Until resolution of these transportation issues, the parties
shall take no action to preclude alternative solutions to those
issues.
As of Januray 1 , 1984, this Agreement shall lapse and the agreement currently
in effect between the parties shall revive, unless:
1 . The parties resolve the issues set forth above; and
2. The parties extend the time in which to reach agreement.
This Agreement commences on �- ��' 19
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area
Agreement on the date set opposite their signatures.
CITY OF TIGARD
J
By r'/� ��c� Date C'j Ci
Mayor
WASHINGTON COUNTY
By 'YI!!2 Date
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
266'r�o i Date
Recordfiif Secretary
APPROVED WASHINGTON COUNTY
�+ A.a� Off' COMMISSIONERS
�2 63
DATE
-9-
CITY OF
�.
T I G A RD c , � �, `_, �.
URBAN PLANNING AREA � i
r
EXHIBIT A (`
1 o _
WASHINGTON COUNTY—TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT 1P s
:
IA u
lu
/: ... alt,� ........ � _°"' � F i•
---'E
` Q
U.
1883 t t `•7(n'� jinn J '
URBAN PLANNING AREA .� l
BOUNDARY
• r
A ACTIVE PLANNING AREAAl
AREA OF INTEREST
O'DONNELL. DATE May 31, 1983
`SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Jerem COUYS011eC-it Of Tigard
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET Y Y g
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
15031 222-4402 FROM Ed Sullivan
RE Draft Urban Planning Area Agreement
I have reviewed the latest draft of this agreement dated May 19 ,
1983 and have also met with Rick Daniels, Washington County
Planning Director, on May 27 , 1983 , to review the comments below.
Rick was very put out over the changes, feeling that the
Planning Commission had reached an acceptable compromise with the
city staff . Mr. Daniels conceded a number of the changes and
indicated that he was not in agreement with others . I will
attempt to comment on those changes as we review the agreement.
On p. 1 , first paragraph, strike the word "the" before "COUNTY"
and "CITY" . In the fourth paragraph, last line, change "will" to
"shall" .
On p. 2, Section II.A. 4 . has been deleted. If this deletion is
to occur, the city should insist upon a separate Urban Planning
Area Agreement with the Unified Sewerage Agency which contains
the same language as that deleted. I understand from talking
with the DLCD staff that such an agreement would be required if
the city insists upon it. Mr. Daniels said that the Agency would
be willing to sign such an agreement. However, historically, the
Agency has been very slow to sign an Urban Planning Area Agreement.
I would like your authorization to prepare such an agreement for
submission to the Board of Directors of the Unified Sewerage Agency
(the County Commissioners) .
In Section II .A. 5, first line, change "will" to "shall" and, on
the second line, after the word "not" , eliminate "facilitate"
and add the following:
"***provide for, nor be conditioned to provide for, an
enforceable plan for redevelopment to urban densities
consistent with CITY' s Comprehensive Plan***"
The sentence should continue with "in the future. . . " .
In Section II .A. 7 , the city should insist that the development
standards for application in the active planning area be agreed
upon simultaneous with the signing of this agreement. Either the
city or the county development standards should apply. My
experience working for Douglas County and being involved in the City
Roseburg agreement indicates that this is a major issue and the
city' s signing off on this agreement without having this major
issue resolved would be a mistake.
In Section II .A. 9 , Mr. Daniels agreed to changing the words "not
oppose" to "encourage" .
In Section II.A. 8 , Mr. Daniels agreed with the need to adopt a
comprehensive plan mutually agreeable to the city and the county.
EJS:mch
5/31/83 - Page 1
O'DONNELL. DATE May 31 , 1983
'SULLIVAN & RAMIS +`
ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Jeremy Coursolle
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND, OREGON 97209
15031 222-4402 FROM Ed Sullivan
RE Draft Urban Planning Area Agreement
It appears to me that the county must adopt the city' s comprehen-
sive plan or negotiate with the city to change that plan in a
manner which satisfies both parties. The present language, even
as amended, does not do that job. I would request that the county
specifically adopt the city' s comprehensive plan, or indicate
where that plan, in the county' s view is deficient. These issues
should be resolved before the signing of an Urban Planning Area
Agreement.
In Section II.B. 4 .c, the paragraph appears to be superfluous in
view of the next paragraph and, therefore, it should be eliminated.
In Section II .B. 4 .d, third to last line, the words "to annex"
should follow the word "rights" .
In Section II.C. 1, I recommend that the first sentence be
eliminated. The effect of that sentence would be either the city
must change its comprehensive plan or it breaches the agreement,
in view of the strong policy position taken by the Council with
respect to Durham Road and the Murray Road extension. I suggest
that in lieu of this language the following language be employed:
"The CITY and COUNTY are in disagreement on at least two
major transportation issues: (1) the classification and
use of Durham Road between Pacific Highway and the
Interstate 5 freeway; and (2) the location of the extension
of Murray Boulevard to Pacific Highway. Despite this
disagreement, the parties have agreed to a process for
resolution of their conflicts and agree not to preclude
potential transportation options or road system improve-
ments proposed in their respective comprehensive plans,
notwithstanding their disagreement. "
In Section III .A. 1 , I would strike the last sentence to the
definitions of Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Regulations,
as these sentences are not necessary for the agreement. In lieu
thereof , I would add a phrase at the beginning of Section III .A. 2
to read "except as provided subsection B, below, . . . " .
In Section III .A. 2 .d, on the next to the last line, I would
substitute "review" for "appeal" and strike the word "appeals"
on the last line. This should also be done in Section III .C. l .c.
In Section III.B. 3 .c, I would strike "If received in a timely
manner" in that it appears that if the city is supplied with
notices of land use actions only ten days prior to hearing , _opposing
information will almost never be "timely" . Additionally, at the
end of the second line, I would add the word "or supplemental
thereto" .
EJS:mch
5/31/83 - Page 2
O'DONNELL, DATE May 31 , 1983
-SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET T� Jeremy Coursolle
PORTLAND, OREGON 97209
15031 222-4402 FROM Ed Sullivan
RE Draft Urban Planning Area Agreement
In Section III.C. l .b, I would strike the last sentence. It is
almost impossible to give a written or oral response if an agenda
is sent out three days before the proposal is before the hearings
officer, Planning Commission or County Commissioners. To do
otherwise waives the rights of the city to challenge a land use
action. Similarly, I would strike the words "after such consi-
deration" in the third line of Section III .C. l .c .
In Section IV.A, I would strike the entire section, in that the
right to enter into a memorandum of understanding is already given
the city in Section III .A. 2 .a.
In Section IV.B, I would change "the Community Planning" to "their
respective recognized Community Planning" .
In Sections IV.C. and D. , I would change the words "introduction"
to "submission to the county Planning Commission.
I hope you find the above helpful to the department and the city.
cc: Bob Jean
EJS:mch
5/31/83 - Page 3
O'DONNELL. DATE May 4 , 1983 '��
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW To Bill Monahan, Tigard Planning Director
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
15031222-4402 FROM Ed Sullivan, Tigard City Attorney
RE Proposed Tigard-Washington County Urban
Planning Area Agreement (LAWYER/CLIENT)
I have been asked to give a summary review of this document, apparently
sent to all cities in Washington County, by the County Planning
Department on April 25, 1983 . I suggest that the document is
deficient and objectionable to the City. The following will summarize
my legal grounds for that conclusion, though I am aware that there
may be additional planning objections as well .
Section II (A) (4) allows the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) to issue
sewerage connection permits without city consent. The furthest the
county will go is a "request" to USA to deny such permits. The
City should insist that USA be made a party to this agreement or that
USA sign a separate agreement with the City and pledge not to issue
sewerage permits outside the city but within its active planning area
without the consent of the City.
Section II (A) (5) seems to create a guarantee of service beyond common
law and may create liability for the City to third parties for failure
of the city or special districts in the area to serve a parcel of land.
The sentence should begin:
"The city shall plan and regulate the use of land with a goal
of providing development within the active planning area. . . . "
In Section II (A) (6) , "urban level of development" is not defined and
leads to unnecessary litigation which the city cannot afford if it
disagrees with the county. See Metropolitan Service District v.
Washington County, 1 Or LUBA 282 (1980) , which arose, incidentally,
on Bull Mountain.
In Section II (A) (7) , the city may wish to have a tighter hold over
development without its approval . The same goes for Section II (A) (8)
--I would like a stronger commitment towards adoption of the city' s
comprehensive plan and implementing regulations than "consider" .
The whole point of an active planning area is that the city plan
controls. Left out are the important issues, such as the conflict
between Sections II (A) (2) and II (A) (8) , and exactly whose subdivision
and land development regulations govern.
I note that annexations are treated in the Area of Interest (but not
very strongly: "The city may consider requests for annexations in
the area of interest. " See Section II (A) (4) . ) but that there is
nothing in the Active Planning Area regarding this issue.
In Section II (B) , there should be a concession by the county that the
city has automatic standing in its area of interest. Also, I don' t
know why there is a "tit for tat" automatic interest by the county
regarding every land use decision by the city within its own boundaries.
Perhaps that list should be limited to plan amendments and zone
changes.
EJS:mch
5/4/83 - Page 1
-L,
O'DONNELL. DATE May 4 , 1983
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO $111 Monahan
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
15031 222-4402 FROM Ed Sullivan
RE Proposed Tigard-Washington County Urban
Planning Area Agreement (LAWYER/CLIENT)
In Sections II (B) (2) and (3) , I would push for some modicum of
consistency between city and county plans and provision of public
services as a part of the agreement, rather than leaving the county
unfettered discretion in the area.
Regarding annexations in the Area of Interest, I believe that
development can, and will (given the county' s phlegmatic resistance
to development proposals) , take place within the Area of Interest,
leading to sprawl and uncoordinated provision of public services
and facilities. Section II (B) (4) should be rejected in its entirety
Section II (B) (4) (a) has the city saying it has no need for any of
the land within its Area of Interest. Other parts of the agreement ]
give the county the power to control planning and provision of public
services to the city' s area of interest (see Sections II (B) (2) and ( ) )
This subsection goes on to give the county unfettered discretion
to supply public services to the area, making it less likely that
these parcels will ever annex to the city.
Section II (B) (4) (b) requires annexations to be frustrated if one or
a few property owners disagree.
To the same effect in the Metzger/Progress community is the "Plebescite
requirement, which may result in an indefinite postponement of city
jurisdiction of a major unincorporated urban area. It appears that
the county has commitments to area residents and seeks to bind the
city in this regard. The city should resist, even to the point of
having no agreement, these efforts.
In Section II (B) (4) (d) , there is a commitment to adopt county desig-
nations upon annexation (without a similar commitment by the county
to adopt the city' s plan for the Active Planning Area) . I defer to
your planning judgment on this point, as well as on Section II (B) (4) (e)
In Section II (C) (1) , there is a purported signoff for the Durham
Road improvement and Murray Road extension, despite contrary language
in the city' s plan. The city cannot accept this language in view of
the strong stand taken by the council earlier this year on those
roads.
In Section III (A) (2) (a) , the city may want to specify through council
action, rather than by agreement between the city and county Planning
Directors, the method and level of involvement in plan and implementing
ordinance adoption and amendment. I do not like the "memorandum of
understanding" approach--it gives too much latitude to the staff and
may leave the council in the dark as to important planning issues.
EJS:mch
5/4/83 - Page 2
O'DONNELL. DATE May 4, 1983
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO $111 Monahan
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
15031 222-4402 FROM Ed Sullivan
RE Proposed Tigard-Washington County Urban
Planning Area Agreement (LAWYER/CLIENT)
In Section III (A) (2) (b) and, later in Section III (B) (3) (a) , the
10-day period for comment is insufficient as a time in which to
respond to a proposal by another agency. To the same effect, is
Section III (C) (1) (a) , which gives a 3-day period for response. In
addition, it isn' t clear how Section III (A) (2) (a) is consistent
with Section III (A) (2) (b) , as one has a 45-day period for response,
while the other has a 10-day period.
Section III (B) is unclear--where does the city have a right to
receive notice of county actions--in the Active Planning Area, the
Area of Interest, or if personal notice is required and must be
given in either area?
Finally, it is not clear in Section IV(A) who or what is the
"reviewing body" nor the function of such a body.
I hope the above comments are of assistance to you. If I can assist
further, please advise.
EJS:mch
5/4/83 - Page 3
CITYOF TWA' PD
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
May 19, 1983
Mr. Kevin Martin, Senior Planner
Washington County
Administrative Building
150 N. First Avenue
Hillsboro, Oregon 97123
i
RE: Tigard UPAA
Dear Kevin,
I have had an opportunity to review the latest draft of the Urban Planning
Area Agreement between Washington County and the City of Tigard. The
charges which you and I discussed concerning the elimination of reference
to the Unified Sewerage Agency have been made as well as all others.
As I understand it, this version of the agreement will be forwarded to
your Board for consideration, as well as the Tigard Planning Commission.
The schedule of meetings to consider the agreement here in Tigard is
as follows:
May 24 - Planning Commission - Study Session
June 7 - Planning Commission - Public Hearing
June 13 - City Council - Public Hearing
I will notify you of any proposed charges as they occur.
Since ,
William A. Monahan
Director of Planning & Development
WAM:pjr
12755 S.W. ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGAHD, OREGON 97223 PH 6,39-4171
EXHIBIT B
6-9-83
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY, WASHINGTON
COUNTY AND CITY OF TIGARD AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered in this day of ,
1983, by and between the UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY , a
County Service District formed under ORS Chapter 451 , hereinafter called
"AGENCY" and the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of the State of
Oregon, hereinafter called "CITY" .
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into
agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a
party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have the authority to perform;
and
WHEREAS, State-wide Planning Goal No. 2 (Land Use Planning) requires that
city, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions
be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties; and
WHEREAS, ORS 197. 185 provides a method for coordination of programs affecting
land use of special districts; and
WHEREAS, the parties are amenable to entering into an agreement under the
terms and conditions set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:
1 . AGENCY shall undertake its actions within CITY limits and CITY 'S
Active Planning Area in accordance with CITY 'S Comprehensive Plan.
2. AGENCY shall prohibit the connection of new development within CITY'S
Active Planning Area to its sewer system facilities unless CITY gives
prior written approval .
3. CITY will cooperate with AGENCY in its functions of providing
sanitary sewer facilities.
4. This Agreement shall continue until the parties mutually agree to
terminate this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement on the date set
under their signatures.
CITY OF TIGARD BOARD OF DIRECTORS, UNIFIED SEWERAGE
AGENCY, WASHINGTON COUNTY
By By
Mayor Chairman
Attest
City Recorder Recording Secretary
Date Date
(0596A)
To
19 U AS H IN GTON COUN 1'Y
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING — 150 N. FIRST AVENUE
HILLSBORO,OREGON 97123
RE O�
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WES MYLLENBECK, Chairman
(503) 648-8761
BONNIE L. HAYS, Vice Chairman
EVA M. KILLPACK
JOHN E. MEEK
LUCILLE WARREN
July 7, 1983
Bill Monahan, Planning Director
City of Tigard
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
At their meeting on June 28, 1983, the Washington County Board of Commissioners
voted to approve Ordinance No. 263, the new Washington County Comprehensive
Plan for the urban area.
The Urban Planning Area Agreement for the City of Tigard was adopted as part of
Ordinance No. 263. A signed copy of the agreement is enclosed for your files.
Chapter X of the Washington County Charter requires that ordinances adopting new
or amended comprehensive plans for the County take affect 90 days after the date
of final adoption. However, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes that the
Urban Planning Area Agreement contains both substantive and procedural provisions
to enhance intergovernmental cooperation and ensure orderly and efficient planning
in the affected areas, and therefore the new agreement should be utilized immediately.
To accomplish this, the Board adopted a policy in Resolution and Order No. 83-118
directing that the Urban Planning Area Agreement be implemented as an intergovern-
mental agreement immediately upon adoption of Ordinance No. 263.
At this time I wish to thank you for your assistance given the County during
development and adoption of the new Urban Planning Area Agreement and the
Washington County Comprehensive Plan. I look forward to continued coordination
between the City and county on future City and County planning projects.
---A
Richard A. Daniels
Planning Director
RAD: KM:mbm
c: Wilbur Bishop, Mayor
Bob Jean, City Manager
an equal opportunity employer
11017
RESPONSE TO CITY'OF TIGARD COMMENTS
ON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
MAY 19 1983
CITY OF TIGARD
A. WITH RESPECT TO THE EXTENSION OF MURRAY BLVD. , THFOfin .
rX RD
REQUESTS LANGUAGE MODIFICATION ON POLICY ON THIS 5Lf8 CST ON PAGE 119 .
Staff Recommendation
Concur with and modify appropriate policy to read as follows:
Washington County will cooperate with Metro, ODOT and
the local jurisdictions ' efforts to analyze more
precisely the travel needs of this corridor/connection.
Further , the County will participate in the delineation
of appropriate alternatives which assure provision
of urban services which do not only accommodate residents
of the above cities , but also the travel needs of
unincorporated area residents who are attracted to
travel opportunities within these jurisdictions.
Planning Commission Recommendation
/E. CITY :OF TIGARD TAKES ISSUE WITH "THE PROPOSED REGIONAL CONNECTOR
oe EXTENDING MURRAY ROAD TO 99 W. FURTHER, THEY PROPOSE THAT MURRAY
SHOULD ONLY BE BUILT TO A MINOR COLLECTOR STATUS.
Staff Response
County travel analysis clearly indicates that two to three lanes
of capacity needs to be provided. Providing this on a Minor
Collector design standard would be inappropriate since the facility
connects into a Major Arterial north of Scholls Ferry. Further,
the Plan can be amended if the Metro/ODOT corridor studv in the
southwest area indicates that such a connection is undesirable
and unwarranted.
Staff Recommendation
Retain designation of Plan.
Planninq Commission Recommendation
✓C. CITY POINTS OUT THAT ON COUNTY MAPS GAARDE ROAD' S CONNECTION
ACROSS 99W IS INDICATED TO BE DIRECT TO MCDONALD' S STREET.
Staff Response
`- This is obviously an error and will be administratively corrected.
r;
-2
�D. THE CITY INDICATES THAT OTHER THAN ON THE ARTERIAL SYSTEM (COUNTY`
FACILITIES) , THE STANDARDS FOR LOCAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS TO BE
USED FOR TRANSIT SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
AND TRI=MET.
Staff Response
Staff agrees that we can only encourage such actions and, indeed,
by the adoption of this candidate transit streets mao, are so
doing (given the relative inaction by Tri-Met in creating such
a system for the County) .
Staff Recommendation
Retain candidate transit streets map adopting policy indicating
that outside County jurisdiction streets are only shown for
encouragement purposes.
Planning Commission Recommendation
J E. LRT TRANSIT WAYS AND REGIONAL TRUNK ROUTES (PAGE 82) . TIGARD STAFF
PROPOSES MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED LRT EXTENSION TO TIGARD ALONG
HIGHWAY 217 AND HALL BE CHANGED TO OLESON ROAD, BURLINGTON NORTHEF
TRUNK THROUGH THE CITY OF TIGARD TO BONITA ROAD AND KRUSE WAY.
Staff Response
These alignments were adopted by .Metro in the RTP and we would be
out of compliance to indicate otherwise.
Staff Recommendation
Maintain a plan map indicating the LRT transit way and regional
routes adopted by Metro.
Planning Commission Recommendation
ASHINGTON COU1 , FY
t ADMINISTRATION BUILDING — 150N. FIRST AVENUE
HILLSBORO, OREGON 97123
EGO
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ) PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WES MYLLENBECK, Chairman ¢ �, (503) 648-8761
BONNIE L. HAYS, Vice Chairman ,
EVA M. KILLPACK -- A
LOUCIIE. MEEK
LLE WARREN
P�-p`NN�NG
March 25, 1983
City Planning Officials
RE: JURISDICTION OF COUNTY ROADS UPON ANNEXATION TO CITIES
The attached letter was sent to the Portland (Metropolitan Area Local
Government Boundary Commission to reaffirm Washington County's position
regarding road jurisdiction in certain annexation proposals. The County's
policies regarding this issue were adopted in 1981 . As explained in the
letter to the Boundary Commission, Washington County has not actively
pursued enforcement of these policies. However, as a result of the current
process to complete the Washington County Urban Comprehensive Plan and the
reluctance of some cities to request jurisdiction for county roads after
annexation, the County is now carefully reviewing all city annexation
requests to insure that these policies are implemented.
It is our hope that the cities and the county can work together to resolve
the road jurisdiction issue. To achieve this, we request that the cities
notify the Washington County Planning Department of proposed annexations
affecting county roads as soon as possible, rather than waiting for offi-
cial notice from the Boundary Commission. This will enable the affected
city and the county to resolve any road jurisdiction questions that may
exist prior to the Boundary Commission hearing. The Planning Department
wishes to avoid opposing annexations to cities because of road jurisdiction
issues whenever possible.
Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions
or concerns, please contact Kevin Martin at 640-3552.
Richard A. Daniels
Planning Director
JD
Attachment
c: Larry Rice an equal opportunity emplo}ver
-GSOIy'�
;h �Z N� _ 6HINGTON COUN "Y
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING — 150 N. FIRST AVENUE
HILLSBORO, OREGON 97123
ORE ON
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS GPLANNING DEPARTMENT
WES MYLLENBECK, Chairman (� r`� i (503) 648-8761
BONNIE L. HAYS, Vice Chairman
EVA M. KILLPACK
JOHN E. MEEK
LUCILLE WARREN
Ci CY OF
TVAD s
March 4, 1983 P1-ANN�NG SEPT {
i
Portland Metropolitan Area Local
Government Boundary Commission
320 S.W. Stark St. , Suite 530
Portland, OR 97204
F
The Board of Commissioners at its regular meeting on July 7, 1981 , by
Minute Order 1#81-342, adopted as County policy the following statements
which address road jurisdictions which are a part of a proposed annexa-
tion to a city.
1 . It shall be the policy of the County to require that
annexation legal descriptions are drawn to include all
adjacent road right-of-way in the annexation unless
the Board determines otherwise.*
2. It shall be the policy of the County to obtain assurances
from a city that the city will request transfer of
jurisdiction after annexation of all public and county
local and collector roads unless the Board determines
otherwise.
3. It shall be the policy for the County to reach an agreement
on the jurisdictional status of all county arterials prior
to annexation, unless the Board determines otherwise.
4. It shall be the policy of the County to oppose annexations
of land to cities that have not incorporated significant
unincorporated county islands within their cities where
they may do so by their own actions, unless the Board
determines otherwise.
5. It shall be the policy of the County to oppose annexations
where the city and the county have not reached agreement
on policy items 1 ,2,3 and 4 above.
*These policies do not allow a city to take jurisdiction of a
road outside its boundaries for the purpose of creating islands
of land so the city can use this basis for annexation of these
islands.
an equal opportunity employer
` t
Boundary Commission j
March 4, 1983 �� `;4� 1 1°83
Page 2
i ti +jh I IGHKD
PLi,1AI1IRG DEPT.
In the past, Washington County has not actively pursued enforcement of these
policies. However, as a result of the current process to complete the
Washington County Urban Comprehensive Plan, and the continued reluctance
on the part of some cities to request jurisdiction for County roads after
annexation, the County is now carefully reviewing all city annexation
requests to insure that these policies are implemented. In the future,
Washington County will oppose all annexations in which the issue of road
jurisdiction has not been addressed prior to the public hearing before the
Boundary Commission.
On the surface this may appear as an attempt by the County to frustrate
annexations to cities. This is not the case. We realize that the Boundary
Commission is philosophically committed to furthering the interests of
cities by supporting all reasonable annexation requests. The County may
not share an identical position, but as long as a proposed annexation is
consistent with City and County comprehensive plans, urban planning area
agreements and capital improvement plans, the County is not opposed to such
actions. However, at the same time the Boundary Commission is considering
whether a proposed annexation is in the best interests of the city, the
interests of the County should be considered in equal detail . A major
concern of Washington County at this time is that road jurisdiction be
worked out between the County and cities prior to annexation.
The cities have long advocated their position of being the most logical ,
efficient and economical provider of urban services. We do not wish to use
this forum to debate that claim. But we do wish to point out that if the
cities believe annexation is one method to better the interests of their
existing and future residents, they should, at the same time, accept the
legal and financial responsibilities that go along with expanding their
boundaries. Cities almost unhesitatingly accept jurisdiction of water,
sewer and storm drainage lines upon annexation. We feel they should be
equally responsible for accepting jurisdiction of County roads.
In summary, it is Washington County's position that the Boundary Commission
should take into consideration the issue of road jurisdiction when evalua-
ting annexation requests. Washington County does not wish to obstruct the
annexation process, we only wish to insure that the interests of the County
and its residents are considered and protected.
Richard A. Daniels
Planning Director
K1,1:k u