Ordinance No. 06-15 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 2006- JS
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 35.78 ACRES, APPROVING CACH CREEK AREA
ANNEXATION (ZCA2006-00002), 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), ORS 222.125, and ORS
222.170(1) and (2) to annex contiguous territory upon receiving written consent from owners of 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 he within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, the 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
upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on September 26, 2006, to consider the
annexation of eight (8) parcels (WCTM 2S105DB,Tax Lots 6100, 6200 & 400;WCTM 2S105DC,Tax
Lots 201, 300 &400; and WCTM 2S105DD,Tax Lots 200 &300) of land located adjacent to and west
of SW Sunrise Lane, and adjacent to and north of SW Bull Mountain Road, including right-of-way on
SW Sunrise Lane and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the 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;
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 on September 26, 2006; 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
ORDINANCE NO.2006-�_ ZCA2006-00002 Cach Creek Area Annexarion
Page 1 of 3
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 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 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 Sheriff s Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District,Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council adopts the "Staff Report to the City Council," as amended by
the memorandum from Emily Eng, dated October 5, 2006, as findings in support of
this decision; a copy of the staff report including the amending memorandum is
attached hereto as Exhibit"D" and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3: The Tigard City Council adopts "Supplemental Findings in Support of Cach Creek Area
Annexation" as findings in support of this decision. A copy of the Supplemental
Findings in Support of the Annexation is attached as Exhibit A to Addendum 1 to the
Staff Report and incorporated by this reference.
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by
the Mayor and posting by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation,
including 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 6: 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 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the
Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2007.
ORDINANCE NO.2006-/ ZCA2006-00002 Cach Creek area Annexation
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the
Secretary of State.
PASSED: By U h 0-til M ous vote of all Council members present after being read by number
and title only, this /L) day of ) 2006.
-6A
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorde
ItD�
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this ( b� day of Oc
,
2006.
�t
Craig Dirksen,Mayor
Approved as to form:
Aia�a �Dfi cel
ity Attorney Date
ORDINANCE NO.200615- ZCA2006-00002 Cach Creek Area Annexation
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
A tract of land situated in the Section 5,Township 2 South Range 1 West Willamette Meridian described as
follows:
Beginning at the Northeast Comer of Stanhurst; thence N 000 47'29"E a distance of 1227.67 feet; thence .
N 00°47'29"E a distance of 225.00 feet; thence S 88°52'17"E a distance of 341.09 feet; thence S 00°47'
29"W a distance of 225.00 feet; thence N 88°52'17"W a distance of 117.09 feet; thence S 00° 11'04"E a
distance of 348.04 feet; thence S 89°12'37"E a distance of 420.08 feet; thence S 01°12'28"W a distance
of 615.64 feet; thence N 88°41'47"E a distance of 356.41 feet to the westerly right-of-wap of SW Sunrise
Lane; thence along the said westerly right-of-way the following 7 courses; thence N 14°18'07"W a
distance of 11.36 feet; thence N 16°59'53"E a distance of 92.68 feet; thence N 43°18'47"E a distance of
111.75 feet; thence N 04°36'28"E a distance of 155.66 feet; thence N 01°25'58"E a distance of
131.41feet; thence N 180 08'48"W,along said westerly right-of-way,a distance of 101.59 feet; thence N 050
04'06"E,along said westerly right-of-wap,a distance of 89.57 feet; thence S 84°55'54"E leaving said
westerly ,right of-way,a distance of 40.00 feet to the easterly,tight-of-way of SW Sunrise Lane; thence N 84°
18'39"E a distance of 123.69 feet;thence S 870 13'42"E a distance of 312.82 feet; thence S 01°01'50"W
a distance of 304.42 feet; thence N 89°28'08"W a distance of 409.21 feet to the easterly right-of-way of SW
Sunrise Lane; thence,along said easterly right-of-way the following 8 courses,S 01°25'58"W a distance of
11.28 feet;thence S 04°36'28"W a distance of 171.82 feet; thence S 430 18'4711 W a distance of 116.45
feet; thence S 160 59'53".W a distance of 72.12 feet;thence S 14°18'07"E a distance of 184.66 feet;thence
S 04°12'11"W a distance of 330.61 feet; thence S 00°35'17"W a distance of 322.91 feet; thence S 00°15'
17W a distance of 68.92.feet to the northerly right-of-way of SW Sunrise Lane; thence S 89°49'00"E,
along said northerly tight-of-wap,a distance of 237.80 feet; thence S 00°43'00"W,along said northerly
tight-of-wap,a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 89°49'00"E,along said northerly tight-of-way,a distance of
920.60 feet; thence S 00°56'05"W a distance of 20.00 feet;thence N 89°49'00"W a distance of 4.92 feet
to the northwest comer of lot 19 Bull Mountain Estates; thence S 00°11'00"W,along the west line of said
lot 19,a distance of.15.00 feet to the extension of the southerly tight-of-way of SW Sunrise Lane; thence N
89°49'00"W,along said southerly right-of-wap,a distance of 251.37 feet to-the northwest comer of lot 18
Bull Mountain Estates; thence N 00°25'58"E,a distance of 15.00 feet to the northwest comer of Bull
Mountain Estates; thence N 89°49'00"W,along southerly right-of-wap of SW Sunrise Lane,a distance of
941.78 feet to the westetly right of way of SW Sunrise Lane; thence N 000 15'17"E,along said westerly
right-of-way,a distance of 109.57 feet; thence N 00°35'17"E,along said westerly right-of-way,a distance
of 175.45 feet; thence N 89°47'37"W a distance of 310.04 feet; thence S 00°31'09"W a distance of
130.19 feet; thence N 89°49'00"W a distance of 284.88 feet;thence S 00°47'38"W a distance of 155.00
feet; thence N 89°49'00"W a distance of 135.00.feet; thence N 00°47'38"E a distance of 155.00 feet;
thence N 89°49'00"W a distance of 300.00 feet to the easterly line of Stanhurst; thence N 00°47'29"E,
along said easterly line,a distance of 510.55 feet to the'point of beginning.
Containing 35.78 acres.
ANNEXATION CERTIFIED R E G,s t E R E a
PROFESSIONAL
BY LAND SURVEYOR
OC 0 2 2006
WASHINGTON COUNTY A&T o R E G a 14
CARTOGRAPHY '"'y 18, 1980
JOHN R. HADLEY
1894
EXCEPTING
A tract of land situated in the Section 5,Township 2 South Range 1 West Willamette Meridian described as
follows:
Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Stanhurst; thence N 00°47'29".E a distance of 262.71 feet; thence
S 89°10'59"E a distance of 624.11 feet; thence S 01°05'50"W 10.03 feet; thence N 88°41'59"E a
distance of 217.00 feet to The True Point of Beginning; thence S 050 00'48"E a distance of 227.46 feet;
thence S 050 07'52"W a distance of 115.66 feet; thence S 89°49'00"E a distance of 181.95 feet;to the
westerly tight of way of SW Sunrise Lane; thence N 04°12'11"E,along the westerly right-of-wap of SW
Sunrise Lane,a distance of 183.76 feet; thence N 14°18'07"W, along the westerly right-of-wap of SW
Sunrise Lane,a distance of 168.15feet; thence S 880 41'59"W a distance of 163.44 feet to the true point of
beginning
Containing 1.42 acres
ANNEXATION CERTIFIED
BY
OCT 0 2 2006
WASHINGTON COUNTY A&T
CARTOGRAPHY
R� i�TER10
pRoFE S1SUP01M L
fol
LAND SURV9'
SIM° i�tk.
tgrilb'
lAengyohnrMannexationslennex 2sl section 5 9-211-05.doc
�,.-� r,7nstee k- 3o ai ;ateub 2S 1 05DB
rAMS
t.���r. q .,A° Hwy; w� „'$
}'Y.4653 'r'r "`�J 'f 3b"' l"o, r`.. �.W
ET
(CR 2873) s 111 > SW ONINTERGREEN
asgp.. gg 700 y • � aeon—� -w'-"y SW MAYVIEW WAY .icy ... Q � r "'Spm' '
�k99+�4�0 T � �• ; .� 9 �, $2100� 2200 2900 2400 700 5800 � 16 y 7 �'i 5� 71 .� �� f��r.:➢'paR^�* $,� -r�:
E's+G ,ori � t$ } 7' rk > �k = R 23 24 26 29 27 29 6900, 9000 aei ea a uao x � :!,S�s r t
zle°•' $ a�o � � >t� �:. m "„ r �'t ���� r° A�
G�, C`�`.`t"��f�t S y �";�^e�.���t�g4 � • 2° zB� sago v n 6 v ° � '��4� �� It{'r� d ,�;.Y
,tSY' fib( � R 0.10D 4400 �. aS{f< ku p.;k >E e1
YARROW WAY s 12— SW . 46 48 a7 ,e 3900 3, ; s x as
v d
i'e"",�� 8 w 'i en � a
a x m s a^ .ru � a Y Y 1 � .P aan ar,s s 1• a..:
r b r a
t� i e ° + '+ t i ;1zoo +30o tie 1ni° 1000 RTREE DRIVE
a a WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGO!
N usa°sne ] S 3tS00 n a kj rorr NW1/4SE1/S ALEESECTbNO00' W.M
ICS _ e Lt 6
'j
23
s� s10 6�Aa0 2tl 4000 11 9491� 42 [ 10
7�
5 y 7
p
YARROW WAY + s task ` Vi G shy x3
"tar-+.kx a4P
�§ "� i,fi{'i}w
��'K£� '3�M�+'�
> : d to t a - .. _ ttt r'>• nN-. ', n / -' `SPO 228 S :
200
4 # Y 300 51 -78 �G r1 � F FOR ADOMONAL MAPS VIS?OUR WEOSITEAT
WAY a 4a.� �' ��rr � � � y�wwwco weshln
�r,�
1'. Rt
i s° ro '' 3',btiS.FskW : 100 ri;
s.ae 4e x 4 6 is y r
Ys21 ��v�'�i ', �.
BB 1>�
m S r
-s, ,- x .342 r ✓s o"+� t'x -'}eY` 2� Jt s�Z� Calttee9ed Taalom Fbr.28105DB
.eto4e3r "y0y SA-F m #4 TML'd.l ^t 3 d` 'At yS yi3.5- F f `h-2 9t00,9PD0AWD,900,
ANNEXATION CERTIFIED
400 ? BY
�R n dpi c r k i t S c e uti
OOT 0
°x ai D « j s la a n Y rt e kyF r
WASHINGTON A&T
CARTOGRAPHY
as r► 3e r zq� ''*S t r � �,.
2961) WAY L� _
lt2AG
r PLOT DATE:May 23,2002
FORASSESSMENT PURPOSES
a o
ONLY-DO NOT RELY ON
i FOR OTHER USE
v t ✓ WPI {*` ,�. C of t 1 AgsamaaxwewEy47wrRNaA7ar4 ao»Mtl1er1
3 1 - pe9ynrehrnkronoeal/'andmq'notMcab Murat
}�f 1s �� }"F r' �L� - 1DmJ fk �{ 4` S 1 /.ISb "�.^'J P2 + V allalfVWMb6ou1117YMS PMMCGIl11tMNPePti`�P
1 :, a1 A r F'� f !..�;.. i.._
#8 ,5i r� ✓,..r Y qx`m'j .,+&�'rs�k r^,��'b-:. t sa. 'v* 11 J- � - ..f t'<� t
,r-
at._ J ,� Ja£vq Q y, t ,RSP`" k. rf_
r .p 3f� w7 S F
�-x.��st�,,...,
2S 1 05DC 2S 1 05DC
' 2f0�, 8 289• � CC $, �� .av ac �..'.:: ';': '::
�.• .• 3µ1w
za2 ,J ,r. .� —
',,,,
1 WAYye >uw
� ''.�,a.a µy�1�q.®.n m:' � t ';r4;
H/I. •
Xy
/\ 0_ � d349.�. 348 3{7. •,aet(�c ,rsewfeeW 1d,q faBitic•;laxt�^."';fB1lv':
o W
a WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON
' Xte'*68E SW 7/4 SEI/4 SECTION 05 T2S RI W W.M.
SCALE V e 100'
14
J,3 AC
tot %
\ �� C70'-S 2.
3 tce n3eel }'. ,e,ae°B ,xe:u 'J X>' 8, h .l.
300 'Y3. 8ti Y.X >is!
23-78 3,4Ae e,p B�Ae 5, , r
�. � , . ;$
R ,
€
A.e
201 !
1,.10 AC
'4n°°°O e2°e° `./.'„•'•mrBeaB ,aeBB �Y — ,�1F. St ':dY'''! '�; �,� ✓B•;
R�, •22 rt z8 �( e1 ae FOR ADDITIONAL MAPS VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT
%• It $ .leeea„1, www.0o.washlnpfon.oGus
, � tee tl3BM gee;BIY"•„!,,
lco.ao'x�
g 'Ia:sl `23�/ ..' B�, ,'B6�r” '`JI�',-%<.it ••
'
93A s
.a3 AC
ii e, eda $
vv ,:rro. (CR 2538)s BWe rBne ;�BRe DA .
fC0:01,1
1C8 1 � X36
bWaecB,� �•��� �• �.3, � -ICB BA6,1
18
j1 ,fi�, ranp°CO �0"0° 5 800 4C CD, DC bB
66>
2b
•• '. , , ,,:���T — -- 171 Cancelled Taxlob For.'2S70$DC
zoa,
M^ •^ /.' •w.,l .• �,•,"•.,,,,;• y, 'i I, ANNEXATION CERTIFIED
'6 AC'
800 BV-- -=/`�—o-y-�—
OCT 0 2 2006
WASHINGTON COUNTY A&T
.1 �;';,y,"' •' ee, - CARTOGRAPHY
Va,
k
o(L� d/%',,.' •,'i/baCORNfIi, e+eomv ... v p
P� A :•ieiaa&'.: W �C/VC�CIVYrIr ^..
\G '` Z
o,� 7axa4Btofry
w ;
> PLOT DATE:September 05,2006
FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES
ONLY-DO NOT RELY ON
r, FOR OTHER USE
c�,•, �••' °'>•::";: Mpeaem emlw mmbyMeVw,BBNmel'notliMke,e me manB
J ) >Ot)e•,,,' anreoPmxdybovrdafo&P/ebse° kMeaAm9defe map
,'•,}e� �\��`y� '�� 1°rfM mart pNrent M/wmeEbn.
2S 1 05DC 2S 1 05DC
R, / :r :` �. } >., _ ,m,11e• �A �w� n, 2S 1 05DD
S10
10,8 p,q;, t.4�. ._:� �#;q s• �` ��
_ e
SW KLIPSAN LANEh
,ryzrA
311®• 1 k 1 <` FF3.:.SaCl,M3:, xs I 7100 q e F „w .:! um na 4t
Y 8557 riiaw
42 SYS I 'f <e.t 47 7300 COUflr qr S F n
S.
,- I +m^+ • g 3700 g 14
r yi .
0008 680015
S 13 7 � o 1 m9Ml
39M 36N
v 1,yt, #I 6900 6700 & Y ,1mo $ it �',Iwwf f4PN' .aNM ta0y
45 43
I NI u s r' 1 300 ill ,u2: 8 4000 8 3500 8 10
2¢8Ac 20, & i Is
201
< 7
aatAt 42 42 � D 1 4. ,E•,., � a Y ''
r n HHH
0.
6500
51 -7
41 § „ew ,n•. J fd a n1w
■ yk
tmm i
200 6900—' U
§ 418 TRACT + ..
�i
40
WASHINGTON SEt/4 SE74
R7 W W.M.
6900 $ QSCAlEIONObTTYO
REG
OP
19
4300
�.,.
Y 5 ESi ,�' _ __________ ______ 1MK--nlai_—_—__—_
39 now
g
OP•r is ,�r S1S xxr, 6200—'8 D Y 20 � 92e
rxn,x»„»nxr„x«nn,w«„xn,xxx« II B
¢na3(ewaa,xn a�,
t--)g 420 3106
6100 1
37 tl 0 7 I. 7 8 7:9 10 17 1Y
< gg
*� 603080.x$ 1«7 7 0 4� R W. t")y 1B 1716 )6 14 1�
F r. .r
400 tDOD ++�+ •p �° un4 ,+ /0 2021 22 2a 24=.
za4Ac 2a1wc 36 SSW SEAVIEW LANE
6900
27
23 73 6600 23 s 296oD e 3, 39 35
— a.4700 $
34
gQ gg `i
co
(C8...Mfi °� 5 ° 284 Y 2�o g FOfl ADDITIONAL MAPS VISIT OUR WEBSITE A
' Ff � �. 1yWW.CO.W88hIOQ1000f.Ya
426900 1 2700 gg
}A¢At k 5t32
M 3 g BQ AM•-;.
606 23-74 ,� „A1. ..• '� „•�� o;
ICP 11389) iRBAC 3A,�AL tG 626 2
•°°w 6300 ',} 28 L
em
1400 •+\:� 51oD
4.3a Ac 30
. 27 2500 mce ow as - oA
..,e •4 4 z
a 5300 O 34•• "ii D
3 •O4
7W ---------- F 4.oe Ac 528 7J�D 76o0 '� Ay p
law21 O � Ctulrelletl Texbb
m aro R 0 zr
For:281060D
ICe 8,0121 2 7 01�4(g1�lp(12,2000,
�"ca loam (a e.¢an .42AC a W �' 4 L 1 ANNEXATION CER IFIED
1Cs a,o¢ax BY 1—
2101
ary ° QQ 3.9)AG 1.15AC d, I OO OCT 0 2 2006
9 •? 23QQ—78 k •„4•°°3 WASHINGTON COUNTY A&T
CARTOGRAPHY
8DD1100 (Ca18A841 \\
]01 3.18 AC (Ca 13.3621
' Q Its e,6lm I n••• / J e. Z,
Z - IC86.¢81) 1300 4 g 8
. � � I tl ,mom.�i� .f �1�•rt Z .W
Zcn
N �
It48Ao21 '/ A � W PLOT DATE:February 23,2006
I i ta,,,eeel FOS �S/E3sYQQJ[QY/1MEf��rTTTRppU{j�/ ES
IC813,0811 I I (0813,3921 i It0,3.eam 4 i_ wHtie ninxel• V��>-VI�
Fagg
�1E�`l��
600 ii G
s .Oa AC .el{rM I 1600 p MptlaoW
12I I iso At 1i I W rMOwe03m1nMd4wrrY�Y+aW Wow tb Wn9tea
R I I emu a•wnt I3rwmamRM3Nav1aM
.¢1WK 1 I I 23W 2400 d31m
�]_� .23DO as At .� pMaarMMYtlaratttba.
II J ^
aw.•ww I I X ICs 11.3381 2 78 ICB 8A311 5 4
„,v3A.a..�.. _:;,.e..,•.sr TInRnn
GARD
�. CITY of TIGARD
111 11111116101
�, ,. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
-
111111111l 11111111 �=-11111 ..� "� �'� :�■���
11111111111111111 ■■ ' "� . 006 � � � �
.,,..�.� _ ... 111111 •.�. �=-�= �' � 1 �� �)�
..���� Creek .
- -
�1111111111111111//�'H/1g1� •/ ..11 _:.� _ �. .IIIIIII�II(� Annexation
11111111IIIIIII` 111111 .., ONES `" , `I �r► . 1
. �IIIIII ■, , ''� �•`� ll ���' �.
�IIIIIII� .111111\� — - . �i►�i�_ �,� .. ��s�,
�♦ 1. ..111111/ � ��� _
ME
sw • p •m AIL
.■, i j �. .
11111 `%%
11 01
10, ,
- r
Tfc;nizt7
i EXHIBIT'S
Agenda Item:
Hearing Date: September 26 2006 Time: 7:30 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • '
120 DAYS = N/A
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATION
CASE NOS: Zone Change Annexation(ZCA) ZCA2006-00002
APPLICANT/
COORDINATOR City of Td OWNER: City of Tigard
(Multiple Contact:Beth St Amand Contact: Dennis Koeller-rn
applicants): 13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223 13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigatd,OR 97223
OWNER Tpard Water District OWNER Jon Dyer
PO Box 23000 PO Box 848
Tigard, OR 97223 Lake Oswego,OR 97304
OWNER: Sun Ridge Builders,Inc./
Brentwood Homes
Contact John Noffz
15170 SW Finis Lane
Tigard, OR 97224
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting annexation o ' eleven (11) parcels and the
Sunrise Lane right-of-way containing 41.41a total of 40.93 acres into the City of
Tigard.
LOCATION: Abutting and west of Sunrise Lane, and abutting and north of SW Bull Mountain
Road, including right-of-way on SW Sunrise Lane; Washington County Tax
Assessor's Map No. (WCTM) 2S105DB, Tax Lots 6100, 6200 & 400; WCTM
2S108AB, Tax Lots 1200 & 1201;WCTM 2S105DC,Tax Lots 100, 201, 300 & 400;
and WCTM 2S105DD,Tax Lots 200&300.
CURRENT
ZONING
DESIGNATION: R-6 District(Residential 6 Units Per Acre).The purpose of the Washington County
R-6 District is to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for areas
designated for residential development at no more than six(6) units per acre and no
less than five (5) units per acre,except as specified by Section 300-2 or Section 303-6.
The intent of the R-6 District is to provide the opportunity for more flexibility in
development than is allowed in the R-5 District
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 1 OF 12
EQUIVALENT
CITY ZONING
DESIGNATION: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District.The City of Tigard 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: ORS Chapter 222, Metro Code Chapter 3.09, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10,
Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390.
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1 4 -
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site Information•
The subject site is located along the western boundary of the City of Tigard; the majority of Sunrise Lane
is contiguous to the City limits. The site is part of unincorporated Bull Mountain and the City of Tigard's
Urban Service Area.
The subject site is predominantly in public ownership and is either currently used for public purposes or
will be in the future. The City intends to use the publicly owned land for the purposes of a reservoir and
parkland. The Menlor Reservoir provides public water storage facilities for the Tigard Water District. The
subject site also includes land banked for the Cache Creek Natural Area and future public water facilities:
The City of Tigard Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study (May 2000) shows a future 550'-elevation-zone
Reservoir#1 located on City-owned land adjacent to Sunrise Lane.
The subject site also includes residential land (vacant and in current use). There are four primary structures
located on the subject site: the Menlor Reservoir and three homes. The City approved a lot line
adjustment (M1S2006-00012) for 2S105DC, Tax Lot 100 on July 7, 2006. The two southernmost
residential parcels (2S108AB,Tax Lots 1200 and 1201) are currently under development review; the owner
has submitted separately a land-use application for a 17-lot subdivision with a total of 30 dwelling units
(SUB2006-00003). The application was submitted to the City on January 31, 2006 when the City still
provided development services to the Urban Service Area as agreed in the Washington County— Tigard Urban
Services Intergovernmental Agreement (terminated July 20, 2006). This application is a separate land-use decision
with its own set of review criteria and will not be addressed in this report.
The majority of the subject site contains steep slopes, defined as 25% slope or greater. The City of Tigard
Community Development Code requires Sensitive Lands permits for development on parcels with steep
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 2 OF 12
slopes. There are two wetlands designated as Title 3 wetlands in the subject area. Goal 5 and Bull
Mountain Community Plan natural resources exist on a majority or portions of the subject tax lots,
protection for which will be considered if or when any of the proposed territory develops.
SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS
State: ORS Chapter 222
RegionaL•Metro Code Chapter 3.09
City: Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10,Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390.
A. CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TITLE 18)
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the .relevant portions of the Community
Development Code based on the following findings:
1. Chapter 18.320.020: Approval Process and Standards
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
The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan's Urbanization Chapter (Policy 10.1.1) defines services as
water, sewer, drainage, streets,police,and fire protection. Each service is addressed below.
Policy 10.1.1 further defines capacity as "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 in the City of Tigard."
The proposed annexation territory is currently zoned R-6, a Washington County residential zone
designated for residential development at no more than six (6) units per acre and no less than five
(5) units per acre. With annexation, the subject site's zoning would change to R-7 per Table 320.1
(Title 18). This equivalent city zoning provides for medium-density, single-family residential with a
minimum residential lot size of 5,000 square feet
As noted earlier, the subject site's current and planned uses are mostly public: water provision and
a natural area. The property deeds for certain parcels limit the City to these two uses. If the
remaining 9.14 residential acres were developed to their designated capacity of 7 units per gross
acre, without allowance for the sensitive lands present, the sites could accommodate approximately
63 units total. This gross calculation breaks down as follows: two northeast parcels (Dyer), 21
units; two southwest parcels (Brentwood), 42 units.
These figures were used for City department evaluations of Policy 10.1.1 of the available services.
When these sites develop, the applicant will be required to connect to public service facilities. The
land-use review process will identify specific service provisions and require additional facilities or
upgrades as appropriate,as well as consider the sensitive lands present.
Water — City of Tigard Public Works. The City of Tigard's water system has the capacity to
provide the minimum State of Oregon water service requirements for the proposed annexation,
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXA nON
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 3 OF 12
according to Public Works Dept. Project Engineer Rob Murchison. Murchison's review concluded
that the parcels developed to the most intense use allowed will not significantly reduce the level of
services available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard Attachment A
includes Murchison's Aug. 16, 2006, memo and a map of water serviceability to the annexation
area that identifies area water lines. Murchison's memo also notes that the proposed development
(Brentwood) may require upsizing and a 8" connection to the existing system; again, that
application is a separate land-use decision with its own set of review criteria and will not be
addressed in this report The land-use review process will identify specific service provisions and
require additional facilities or upgrades as appropriate based on the specific development proposal.
Tigard City Engineer Gus Duenas further confirms that the City has adequate capacity
("Memorandum,"Attachment B) and states that"the City has the ability and capacity to determine
what specific improvements may be needed and the ability and capacity to provide service through
its existing system and any additional infrastructure that will be required when development
occurs."
Sewer — Clean Water Services/City of Tigard. Tigard City Engineer Gus Duenas
("Memorandum,"Attachment B) reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:
"Sanitary sewer service is provided at the retail level by the City and at the wholesale level by Clean
Water Services (CWS). As to the capacity of the City's system, the City is capable of providing
retail level sewer service without significant reduction in the level of services provided to
developed and undeveloped properties in the City. As with the water system, some local lines will
be required to be provided by the developer at the time of the development The City is prepared
to accept, operate and maintain public sewers constructed within the annexed area. Sewer service
can be extended from CWS facilities in Menlor Lane and 154 'Avenue located north of the site.
The City is capable of determining what additional facilities will be required and of administering
all portions of the retail sanitary sewer system, both existing and future additions in the area to be
annexed,without significant reduction in the level of services provided to properties in the City."
Drainage — Clean Water Services/City of Tigard. Tigard City Engineer Gus Duenas
("Memorandum,"Attachment B) reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:
"Storm drainage service, like sanitary sewer service, is provided jointly by the City and CWS. Site
specific drainage facilities will be required at the time of development and will be developed and
constructed in accordance with City standards. The retail system as the capacity to provide
adequate storm drainage without significant reduction in the level of services provided to
developed and undeveloped properties in the City."
Streets — City of Tigard Capital Construction & Transportation Division. The City's
Transportation System Plan (TSP) standards apply. The proposed annexation territory is located
adjacent to Sunrise Lane, which is designated a neighborhood route in the City's Transportation
System Plan (TSP). In addition, the southernmost portion of the proposed annexation territory
(WCTM 2S108AB01201) fronts directly on SW Bull Mountain Road, which the City's TSP
designates as a collector. Additional roads to serve the proposed annexation territory.include 150th
Avenue, Roshak Road, 15e Avenue, and other surrounding streets. Tigard City Engineer Gus
Duenas ("Memorandum," Attachment B) reviewed the annexation proposal and concluded that
some improvements to these streets may be required as part of the development of the annexed
area, including extension of existing streets into the area. However, Duenas determined that the
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 4 OF 12
City can provide services to this site, and "doing so will not significantly reduce the level of
services to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard."
Police — City of Tigard Police Department. The City of Tigard's Police Department has
reviewed the annexation proposal and stated that the proposed annexation would not impede
current levels of service to existing developed and undeveloped areas in the City of Tigard. If the
area is annexed,Tigard Police can provide adequate services to the proposed area_ (Attachment C).
Fire— Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R). Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (IVF&R)
already serves the proposed annexation territory. Additionally, TVF&R reviews all subdivision
development proposals and annexation proposals for the City of Tigard and would provide
additional comments at that time.
Based upon this review, staff finds that all public services (as defined by the Comprehensive Plan)
are available to the proposed annexation territory and all public services have sufficient capacity to
provide service to the proposed annexation territory.
2. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been
satisfied.
Three Comprehensive Plan policies apply to proposed annexation: 2.1.1, 10.1.1., and 10.1.2. Staff
has determined that the proposal has satisfied the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies based
on the following findings:
Policy 2.1.1: Citizen Involvement 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 City maintains an ongoing citizen involvement program. To assure citizens will be provided an
opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process, the City provides notice for Type
IV land-use applications. The City posted, mailed and published notice of the public hearing as
follows. The City posted the hearing notice at four public places on August 11, 2006: Tigard
Library, Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center,.and in the general vicinity of the proposed
territory on SW Sunrise Lane and on SW Bull Mountain Road near SW Roshak Road. The City
published notice of the hearing in The Tigard Tualatin Sherwood Times for two successive weeks
(September 7, 2006 and September 14, 2006) prior to the September 26, 2006, public hearing. The
City also mailed notice to all interested parties and surrounding property owners within 500 feet on
August 7, 2006. In addition, the City maintains a list of interested parties organized by geography.
Notice was mailed to interested parties in the West area on August 7, 2006, which includes former
Citizen Involvement Team contacts and CPO 4B, the citizen participation organization for the
area. Staff finds that this policy is met.
Policy 10.1.1: Urbanization. Prior to the annexation of land to the City of Tigard,
a) 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: 1.Water;2. Sewer;3.Drainage;4. Streets; 5. Police;and 6. Fire Protection.
As addressed under 18.320.020 above, adequate service is available to the proposed annexation
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 5 OF 12
territory. Upon annexation, the proposed territory will be zoned R-7,a medium-density single-
family residential zone with a minimum residential lot size of 5,000 square feet. The privately
owned properties have an estimated maximum density of 63 units (not taking into account
sensitive lands).' If they develop,the developer(s)will be required to connect the properties to
public service facilities, such as sewer, storm drainage and water,and provide the necessary street
improvements. Based on comments from City of Tigard staff, there is adequate capacity to serve
the annexation area (water, sewer,drainage, streets,police, fire protection) if developed to the most
intense use allowed, and it will not significantly reduce the level of services available to developed
and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard.
The City of Tigard department of Public Works has reviewed the annexation proposal and states
that the City's water system can provide the minimum State of Oregon water service requirements
for the proposed territory based on the maximum density permitted. Public Works states that
water is available in quantity and quality and has not indicated that there would be a reduction in its
capacity to provide water to the proposed annexation territory or reduce the level of service to the
entire City. The Police Department reviewed the proposal and has no objections. The
Engineering Department reviewed the proposal and has no objections. The Engineering
Department confirmed that sewer service,storm drainage and street access are available to the site.
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R), the current provider to the proposed territory, did not
raise any objections. Staff concludes that there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed territory
(water,sewer,drainage streets police fire protection 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
b) If required by an adopted capital improvements program ordinance,the applicant shall sign and
record with Washington County a nonremonstrance agreement regarding the following:1.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: a)Water,b)
Sewer,c)Drainage, and d) Streets.2.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.
This criterion does not apply: No capital improvements program requires a nonremonstrance
agreement for this area. Some urban services are already available for the proposed annexation
territory; others are available nearby and would require connections from the proposed annexation
area. However, these public facility requirements will be assigned as part of any subdivision review
when an application is submitted.
c)The City shall provide urban services to areas within the Tigard Urban Planning Area or within
the Urban Growth Boundary upon annexation.
The Tigard Urban Planning Area (as defined in the Wasbington County— Tigard Urban PlanningArea
Agreement(UPAA O'uly 2006);see Attachment D of application submittal)includes the proposed
annexation territory.The City is the designated urban services provider for the services defined in
the Tigard Urban Service Agreement(TJSA) (2002)and subsequent operating agreements: police;
parks, recreation and open space;roads and streets; sanitary sewer and storm water (through an
operating agreement with Clean Water Services); and water service. Upon annexation, those
services will be provided according to the City's current policies. Staff finds that this policy is met
1 Maximum density was calculated using formula provided in Code Chapter 18.715.
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXAMN
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 6 OF 12
Policy 10.1.2: Urbanization.Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based
on findings with respect to the following: 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 the City;c)The Police Department has commented upon the annexation;d) the
land is located within the Tigard Area of Interest and is contiguous to the City boundary;e)The
annexation can be accommodated by the services listed.in 10.1.1(a).
a) The proposed annexation sloes not eliminate an existing pocket or island of unincorporated
territory. It does remove portions of an existing pocket("Dyer"property) and would
incorporate City-owned land and publicly owned land that provides Tigard residents with
public.services.
b) As stated earlier,only 9.14 acres of the proposed annexation area are in private ownership and
zoned for residential development. The remaining acreage consists of land in public ownership
for public services,including land for the public water system and a natural area,which require
limited services. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposed annexation
and has no objections.The department stated(Attachment C) that"the proposed boundary for
the annexation does not appear to.present any obstacles for emergency response by the Police
Department." It should also be noted here that the owners of three adjacent properties on
Sunrise Lane have expressed the desire to join this proposed annexation(15180, 14625,and
15110 SW Sunrise Lane); the annexation of those additional properties would eliminate
additional pockets and create a more regular boundary. However, the current proposal does
not include those properties.
c) As shown in B. above, the City of Tigard Police Department has commented on the
annexation.
d) The UPAA Quly 2006)includes the proposed annexation territory within Tigard's Area of
Interest. The proposed annexation territory is contiguous to the City along the site's east
boundary and Sunrise Lane.
e) Lastly, as section 10.1.1.(a) demonstrated, the annexation can be accommodated by the
following services:water, sewer,drainage;streets;police;and fire protection.
Therefore, staff finds that the proposed annexation meets Policy 10.1.2.
Policy 10.1.3: Urbanization. Upon annexation of land into the City which carries a Washington
County zoning designation,the City of Tigard shall assign the City of Tigard zoning district
designation which most closely conforms to the county zoning designation.
Chapter 18.320.020 C of the Community Development Code provides specifics on this
conversion.
The proposed annexation territory's Washington County designation is R-6.Table 320.1
summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations;R-6 County zoning
converts to the City's.R-7 zoning. As this is a Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) application,upon
approval and execution of the proposed annexation, the territory will assume R-7 zoning to
conform with the table below. Additionally, the City's Comprehensive Plan designation for
medium-density residential will be applied to this area.
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 7 OF 12
= a }
TABLE 320.1
CONVERSION TABLE FOR COI:NTY AND CTl Y PLAN AND ZONI-NG DESIGNATIONS
Washington County Land Use City of Tigard Zoning City of Tigard
Districts/Plan Designation Plan Designation
R-5 Res.5 units/acre R-4_5 SFR 7,500 sq.ft. Low density 1-5 unitslacre
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-i 2 Multi-family i 2 unAs/acre Med.density 6-I2 units/acre
R-12 Res_ 12 unitslacre R-12 Multi-family 12 unitsfacre Med.density 6-12 unitslacre
R-15 Res.15 units/acre R-25 Multi-family 25 unitslacre Medium-High density 13-25
urntsiacre
R-24 Res.24 units/acres R-25 Multi-family 25 units/aere Medium-High density 13-25
units/acre
Office Commercial C-P Commercial Professional CP Commercial Professional
NC Neighborhood Commercial CN Neighborhood Commercial CN Neighborhood Commercial
CRD Commercial Business CSD Commercial Business CBD Commercial Business
District District District
GC General Commercial CG General Commercial CG General Commercial
IND Industrial I-L Light Industrial Light Industrials
Chapter 18.320.020
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.
As the previous section demonstrated, the City of Tigard R-7 zoning district is the most similar to
Washington County's R-6 zoning district. The proposed territory is currently R-6 and will automatically
become R-7 upon annexation. This zone conversion will occur concurrently with the annexation process.
There have been no requests for zoning other than R-7.
City.of Tigard Community Development Code
2. Chapter 18.390.060:Type 1V Procedure
Annexations are processed by means of a Type IV procedure,as governed by Chapter 18.390 of the
Community Development Code (Title 18) using standards of approval contained in 18.390.020(B),which
were addressed in the previous section. Chapter 18.390 requires City Council to hold a hearing on an
annexation. It also requires the City to provide notice at least 10 days prior to the hearing by mail and to
publish newspaper notice;the City mailed notice on August 7,2006,and published public notice in The
Tigard Tualatin Sherwood Times for two successive weeks (September 7, 2006, and September 14, 2006,) prior
to the September 26,2006,public hearing.
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEY-AXION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 8 OF 12
Additionally,Chapter 18.390.060 sets forth five decision-making considerations for a Type IV decision:
1.The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197;
The City's Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission to be in compliance with state planning goals. As reviewed above, the annexation proposal
meets the existing Comprehensive Plan policies and therefore is in compliance with state planning goals.
2.Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable;
ORS 222:
State law CORS 222.120(4)(b),ORS 222.125, ORS 222.170(1) and(2)) allows for a city to annex contiguous
territory when owners of land in the proposed territory to be annexed submit a petition to the legislative body
of the city. ORS 222.120 requires the city to hold a public hearing before its legislative body(City Council)
and provide public notice to be published once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of the
hearing,in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and shall cause notices of the hearing to be
posted in four public places in the city for a like period.
The property owners (or their representatives) of all 11 parcels have submitted signed petitions for
annexation to the City. The proposed annexation territory is contiguous to the City along the site's east
boundary and Sunrise Lane.
The City published public notice in The Tigard Tualatin Shenvood Times for two successive weeks (September
7, 2006, and September 14, 2006,) prior to the September 26, 2006, public hearing and posted the hearing
notice at four public places on.August 11, 2006: Tigard Library, Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center,
and in the general vicinity of the proposed territory. Staff finds that the provisions of ORS 222 have been
met.
3.Any applicable METRO regulations;
Chapter 3.09 of the Metro Code (Local Government Boundary Changes) includes standards to be
addressed in annexation decisions,in addition to local and state review standards. Note that the report is
available 15 days before the hearing (September 11,2006, for an September 26, 2006, hearing). Staff has
determined that the applicable METRO regulations (Metro Code 3.09.040(b) &(d)) have been met based
on the following findings:
Metro 3.09.040 (bl
(b)Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a change decision,the approving entity shall make
available to the public a report that addresses the criteria in subsections (d) and(g) below, and that
includes at a minimum the following:
(1)The extent to which urban services presently are available to serve the affected territory
including any extra territorial extensions of service;
As addressed previously in this report,urban services are available to the affected territory.
(2)A description of how the proposed boundary change complies with any urban service provider
agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065 between the affected entity and all necessary parties;
As addressed previously in this report,the annexation proposal complies with all applicable
provisions of urban service provider agreements, UPAA (2006);and TUSA (2002).
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXAnON
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 9 OF 12
(3)A description of how the proposed boundary change is consistent with the comprehensive land
use plans,public facility pians,regional framework and functional plans,regional urban growth
goals and objectives,urban planning agreements and similar agreements of the affected entity and
of all necessary parties;
As addressed previously in this report, the annexation proposal complies with all applicable
policies of the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and urban service provider agreements (UPAA
(2006)and TUSA (2002). The proposed annexation territory is within the Urban Growth Boundary
and subject to the Regional Framework Plan and Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
provisions. There are no specific applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes in the
Regional Framework Plan or the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. However,the
City's Comprehensive Plan and Development Code have been amended to comply with Metro
functional plan requirements. By complying with the Development Code and Comprehensive
Plan,the annexation is consistent with the Functional Plan and the Regional Framework Plan.
(4)Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the affected territory
from the legal boundary of any necessary party; and
The proposed territory will remain within Washington County but will be required to be
withdrawn from 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.
(5)The proposed effective date of the decision.
The public hearing will take place September 26, 2006. If the Council adopts findings to approve
ZCA2006-00002, the effective date of the annexation will be October 26,2006.
Metro Code 3.09.040(d)
(d) An approving entity's final decision on a boundary change shall include findings and conclusions
addressing the following criteria:
1. Consistency with directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
As addressed previously in this application, the annexation proposal complies with all applicable
provisions of urban service provider agreements (UPAA (2006)and the TUSA (2002)). The TUSA
includes the proposed annexation territory. The agreement states that the County and City will be
supportive of annexations to the City, and the City shall endeavor to annex the Bull Mountain area
in the near to mid-term (by 2005-2007,as projected in the TUSA).The proposed annexation is in
the Bull Mountain Area and is contiguous to city limits. Therefore, the proposed annexation is
consistent with these agreements.
2. Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreements,other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065,between the affected entity and a necessary
party;
The UPAA (2006)includes the proposed annexation territory. The City has followed all processing
and notice requirements in the UPAA,providing Washington County with 45-day notice prior to
the public hearing. The agreement states that"so that all properties within the Tigard Urban
Service Area will be served by the City, the County and City will be supportive of annexations to
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 10 OF 12
1
the City."The City also provided notice to the affected CPO (CPO 4B) per the agreement The
annexation proposal is consistent with this agreement
3. Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
As previously stated in this report,this proposal meets all applicable City of Tigard Comprehensive
Plan provisions.This criterion is satisfied.
4.Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plan;
This criterion was addressed under Metro Code 3.09.040(b). By complying with the City of Tigard
Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is consistent with the
Functional Plan and the Regional Framework Plan.
5.Whether the proposed change 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 consistent with the terms of the TUSA (2002),which ensures the timely,orderly,and
efficient extension of public facilities and urban services;it is contiguous to existing city limits and
services;and lastly,urban services are available to the proposed annexation territory and have not
been found to significantly reduce existing service levels.
6.The territory lies within the Urban Growth Boundary;and
The proposed territory is within Metro's Urban Growth Boundary.
7. Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary change in question under state and
local law.
In previous sections, this report reviewed the proposal's consistency with other applicable criteria
and found it to be consistent.
(Tigard CDC 19.390.060)
4.Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and
As demonstrated in previous sections of this report, the proposed annexation is consistent with, and
meets,all applicable comprehensive plan policies.
5.Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances.
There are no specific implementing ordinances that apply to this proposed annexation. Chapter 18 of the
City Code will apply to development of the property.
SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Public Works, Engineering and Police Departments have reviewed the proposal and
have no objections to it and have not indicated that the proposed annexation would reduce their capacity
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 11 OF 12
to provide services to the proposed annexation territory or reduce the level of City services. Full
comments are provided in the attachments listed below.
Attachment A. "Memorandum," from Rob Murchison, Public Works Dept. Project Engineer
Attachment B: "Memorandum," from Gus Duenas, Engineering Division
Attachment Q E-mail from Jim Wolf,Tigard Police Department
SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the annexation proposal and has no objections,comments or
conditions.
ARED Eng I AssistantPDATE
Planner _
f3— ;2 oQ,C
REVIEWED BY: tT6fn Coffee DATE
Community Development Director
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEMAMON
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 12 OF 12
ADDENDUM1
MEMORANDUM "
TO: Mayor Dirksen, City Council
CC: Craig Prosser,Tom Coffee,Dick Bewersdorff
FROM: Emily Eng
RE: ZCA2006-00002 Cach Creek Area Annexation
DATE: October 5,2006
This memo identifies changes to the Cach Creek Area Annexation Proposal. On September
25, 2006, applicant John Noffz of Sun Ridge Builders,withdrew the Brentwood Estates
property (Washington County Tax Map 2S108AB,Tax Lots 1200 and 1201), changing the
original proposal. In addition, one tax lot number (2S105DC,Tax Lot 100) has been
removed because it doesn't exist and was incorrectly shown on the tax map. City Council
held a public hearing for the annexation on September 26, 2006 and decided to continue the
hearing on October 10,2006 and leave the record open for additional information and
public comment. The supplemental exhibits below have been attached to this memo:
Supplemental Exhibit A: Supplemental Findings in Support of the Cach Creek Area
Annexation
Supplemental Exhibit B: Additional Information and Public Comments Submitted to
the Record
Supplemental Exhibit C:Assessed Value of Properties to be Annexed
The following changes apply to the Staff Report:
Page 1
• Sun Ridge Builders should be removed as an applicant and owner.
• Under proposal, "Eleven (11) parcels" should be changed to "Eight (8) parcels."
Total acreage should be changed from 40.93 acres to 35.78 acres. (At the hearing, I
estimated that the total revised acreage was 34.82, but after re-surveying the site,it is
35.78.)
• Under location, the withdrawn parcels (Washington County Tax Map 2S108AB,Tax
Lots 1200 and 1201) should be deleted. In addition,Washington County Tax Map
2S1105DC,Tax Lot 100 should be deleted. These were included as a result of a tax
map error.
• Under current zoning designation, the County designation R-15 should be added
because two of the City-owned properties are zoned R-15..
• Under equivalent zoning designation, the City designation R-25 should be added
because that is the zone that most closely refects the County R-15 designation.
Page 2
• Second paragraph from the bottom, the three sentences regarding the two
Brentwood parcels should be deleted.
Page 3
• Third paragraph from the bottom, maximum density of the privately-owned
property should be calculated based on a total of 3.03 acres instead of 9.14 acres.
Therefore, the estimated maximum residential units is approximately 21 and not 63,
not taking into account sensitive lands.
Page 4
• First paragraph, concerning Public Works' comments on water, the sentence
regarding the Brentwood parcels should be deleted.
• Last paragraph, third sentence from top should be deleted because it relates to the
Brentwood parcels. Concerning roads that serve the proposed annexation territory
in the next sentence, "Roshak Road" should be deleted because it relates to the
Brentwood parcels.
Page 6
• First paragraph, second full sentence, the estimated density should be residential 21
units for the privately-owned property and not 63 units.
• First paragraph, last sentence states, "Based on comments from City of Tigard staff,
there is adequate capacity to serve the annexation area (water, sewer, drainage,
streets,police, fire protection) if developed to the most intense use allowed, and it
will not significantly reduce the level of services available to developed and
undeveloped land within the City of Tigard." City staff reviewed the proposal when
the estimated maximum density was 63 acres;therefore,because the maximum
density is now 21 residential units, the City's assessment of adequate capacity
overestimates the burden of the annexation on City services. In either case,whether
63 or 21 units, the City has adequate capacity to serve the proposed annexation
territory.
• Second paragraph from top states, "The City of Tigard department of Public Works
has reviewed the annexation proposal and states that the City's water system can
provide the minimum State of Oregon water service requirements for the proposed
territory based on the maximum density permitted." The maximum density referred
to was 63 units;however,it is now 21.
Page 7
• In response"b," the privately owned acreage should be changed from 9.14 acres to
3.03.
• Bottom paragraph should be deleted and replaced with "Upon approval and
execution of the proposed annexation, the territory will assume zoning to conform
to the table below. In addition, the City's Comprehensive Plan designation will be
applied to this area."
Page 8
• Response to "C" should be deleted and replaced with"Six parcels in the proposed
territory are currently zoned Washington County R-6 and two parcels are zoned
Washington County R-15. Upon annexation, the six parcels will automatically
become City of Tigard R-7 and the two parcels will become City of Tigard R-25."
Page 9
• Under the response to #2, "property owners of all 11 parcels" should be changed to
"property owners of all 8 parcels."
Page 10
• The response to #5 states, "The public hearing will take place September 26,2006. If
the Council adopts findings to approve ZCA2006-00002, the effective date of the
annexation will be October 26, 2006." However, the public hearing is being
continued on October 10,2006. If the Council adopts the ordinance approving
ZCA2006-00002, the effective date of the annexation would be November 10,2006.
Supplemental EXHIBIT A
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATION
1. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 26, 2006, consistent
with ORS 222.120, to consider this annexation proposal. The City allowed written
comments concerning the proposed annexation to be submitted before, during and for a
period of seven days after the hearing. The Council also received oral comments at the
hearing.
2. The notice of the hearing proposed annexation of property owned by the City of Tigard,
the Tigard Water District,the Trust for Public Land, Brentwood Homes, and Jon Dyer.
The Trust for Public Lands and Brentwood Homes have indicated that they no longer
wish their property to be included in the proposed annexation. City staff has proposed
that the annexation include only those properties owned by the City of Tigard, the Tigard
Water District, and Jon Dyer. The Council agrees that the annexation should be and is
limited to the properties owned by the City of Tigard, the Tigard Water District, and Jon
Dyer. The legal description and a map of the properties being annexed are included in
the ordinance as Exhibits A and B.
3. The City has written consents to annexation signed by a duly authorized official of the
City of Tigard and by Jon Dyer. It also has a petition for and consent to annexation
signed by a duly authorized official of the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB)that
covers the property owned by the Tigard Water District. The IWB consent reflects a vote
by the IWB to petition for and consent to the annexation. The Council finds that the
Intergovernmental Water Board has authority to act for the Tigard Water District and
other members of the IWB as to the property proposed for annexation and properly
exercised that authority in signing the petition for and consent to annexation. The record
includes a letter from King City, a member of the IWB, expressly agreeing with the
consent to annexation, and written minutes of the IWB meeting showing the City of
Durham's vote in favor of the consent and statements in support of consent by Durham's
representative. The minutes show that the Tigard Water District representative abstained
from voting and did not oppose the action of the IWB in consenting to the annexation.
No one has claimed that the IWB lacked authority to act on behalf of the Tigard Water
District.
4. Under ORS 222.170(4), property that is publicly owned is not considered when
determining the number of owners, the area of land, or assessed valuation unless the
owner of the property files a statement consenting to or opposing annexation.
Washington County has not submitted to the City a statement consenting to or opposing
the annexation, so County roads and rights-of-way that are within the area proposed for
annexation are not considered in determining whether the City has sufficient consents.
5. The City has the written consent of all of the owners of property proposed to be included
in the annexation. There are no registered voters in the area proposed for annexation.
The City therefore may proceed with annexation without a vote in the territory to be
annexed under ORS 222.125 (consent of all the owners and at least 50 percent of voters,
1
if any), ORS 222.170(1) (consent of half the owners of half the land with half the
assessed value, and ORS 222.170(2) (consent of a majority of the electors and owners of
half the property).
6. Even if the consent for the property owned by the Tigard Water District is not counted,
the City has sufficient consents to proceed with the annexation without an election in the
territory to be annexed under both ORS 222.170(1) and 222.170(2). The property owned
by the City of Tigard and Jon Dyer totals 21.04 acres, more than half of the total net area
of 32.07 acres. The City and Mr. Dyer are two of three owners—more than half of the
owners. The total assessed value of the property owned by the City and Mr. Dyer is
$970, more than half of$970, which is the total assessed value of all the total net
property value in the area proposed for annexation. Because there are no resident voters
in the area,the number of voters does not need to be considered under ORS 222.170(2).
The City takes official notice of the assessed values for the properties as listed by
Washington County. The City notes that the market value for the Tigard Water District
property, as established by Washington County, is $1,316,700,which is less than half the
total market value of 3,582,850 of all the properties in the area to be annexed.
Findings Addressing Comments Received
7. The City received written comments from Karen and John Molloy, Lisa Hamilton-Treick,
Richard A. Franzke, Michael Orth, and Lawrence R. Derr in opposition to the opposed
annexation. The City also received inquiries from other property owners as to the
possibility of including their properties in the annexation. At the September 26, 2006,
hearing, Ms. Hamilton-Treick and Kinton Fowler testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation, and Linda Walsh offered testimony that could be considered critical of the
annexation.
8. On August 8, 2006, the Washington County Board of Commissioners called an election
on the proposed incorporation of the City of Bull Mountain. The area proposed for
annexation is within the area proposed to be included within the proposed City of Bull
Mountain. The City has concluded, on advice of its City Attorney,that it cannot process
petitions for annexation received after the time the proposed incorporation was referred to
the voters. Therefore, it is including in the proposed annexation only properties for
which it received a petition for and consent to annexation prior to August 8, 2006 and is
not adding any properties to the proposed annexation territory. The City received
petitions for annexation for all properties included in the proposed annexation prior to
August 8, 2006.
Findings Relating To Comments Submitted by Lawrence R. Derr
9. Lawrence R. Derr submitted written comments on October 3, 2006, on behalf of Lisa
Hamilton-Treick. Mr. Derr argues that the City cannot proceed with the annexation
because the area proposed for annexation is within the area of the proposed City of Bull
Mountain. Mr. Derr argues that the "City has taken no actions to initiate this annexation
2
that are prior in time to the annexation procedures." The City concludes that the relevant
date for an incorporation proceeding is the date that the County acts to place the matter
on the ballot. Landis v. City of Roseburg, 243 Or 44, 411 P2d 282 (1966). The City
further concludes that the relevant date for annexations is the date that the petitions are
filed with the City. ORS 222.111(2). This annexation was initiated no later than August
4, 2006, when the last of the petitions, that of Mr. Dyer, was received by the City.
August 4, 2006, was before August 8, 2006, when the County Board acted, so the City
may proceed with the annexation, not withstanding the actions to incorporate the City of
Bull Mountain.
10. Mr. Derr argues that the annexation is in violation of Metro Code Section 3.09.040(a)(1)
because the City lacks jurisdiction. The City has jurisdiction, based on the filing of the
petitions for annexation. Mr. Derr further argues that the City is in violation of Metro
Code Section 3.09.050(3)(5)because the annexation is not consistent with the orderly
provision of public facilities and services because it is in competition with the proposed
Bull Mountain incorporation. The annexation will provide for the orderly provision of
public facilities and services by allowing Tigard services to be provided in the area to be
annexed and would also provide for the orderly provision of parks and water services,
given that the properties owned by the City of Tigard and the Tigard Water District are
planned to be used for parks and water system purposes. Mr. Derr alleges that the
annexation would be contrary to Metro Code 3.09.050(d)(7) because the annexation
would be illegal. The annexation would not be illegal. The proposed annexation is
consistent with Metro Code 3.09.040(a)(1), 3.09.050(d)(5) and 3.09.050(d)(7).
11. Mr. Derr argues that the City failed to provide for"a public hearing necessary to avoid an
election under ORS 222.120(2)." The City Council held a public hearing on September
26, 2006, in compliance with the hearing requirement.
12. Mr. Derr argues that some or all of the petitions did not comply with the requirements of
Metro Code 3.09.040. Mr. Derr has not identified any way in which the petitions failed
to comply with Metro Code Section 3.09.040. Furthermore, Metro Code Section
3.09.040 is a section relating to submission requirements, and does not establish approval
criteria. The City, by processing the petitions, has accepted that they are sufficient to
allow the City to make a decision based on the applicable criteria.
13. Mr. Derr argues that Sunrise Lane is a county road and that the county has neither
petitioned for nor consented to the annexation. Under ORS 222.170(4),publicly owned
property may be annexed but does not count in the consideration of the sufficiency of the
consents unless the public owner consents or objects. The County has not consented or
objected, so the area is not counted in determining the sufficiency of the consents, even
though it is included in the annexation.
14. Mr. Derr further argues that the annexation is a cherry stem annexation and therefore not
justified. Even if this annexation could be considered a cherry stem annexation, cherry
stem annexations are not illegal. See Morsman v. City of Madras, 191 Or App 149, 81
3
P3d 711 (2003) and cases cited therein. Mr. Derr has not argued that the proposed
annexation is unreasonable or provided any factual basis such an argument. The
annexation is reasonable because it provides for an extension of the City boundaries so
that City parks and water facilities will be within the City.
15. Mr. Derr states that the City must clarify the status of zoning and applicability of the Bull
Mountain Community Plan to the property proposed for annexation. The City's decision
does not change the zoning or make the Bull Mountain Community Plan inapplicable to
the areas being annexed.
Findings Related to Written Comments By Karen and John Molloy
16. Karen and John Molloy submitted a written comment on September 30, 2006, apparently
in opposition to the annexation because the property is within the area of the proposed
City of Bull Mountain. As discussed in the findings related to comments by Lawrence R.
Derr,the proposed incorporation of the City of Bull Mountain does not prevent the City
from proceeding with this annexation.
Findings Related to Written Comments by Michael Orth
17. Michael Orth submitted a comment on August 13, 2006, opposing the annexation prior to
the vote on the incorporation of the City of Bull Mountain. As stated in the previous
findings,the City finds no legal impediment to proceeding with the annexation at this
time.
Findings Related to Written Comments Richard A. Franzke
18. Richard A. Franzke submitted written comments dated September 26, 2006. Mr. Franzke
argued that the incorporation proceedings were initiated before the City's annexation
proceedings. As discussed in Finding No. 9 above,the City has concluded that the City's
proceedings have priority.
19. Mr. Franzke argued that the City should respect the will of the citizens who will be
affected by its actions. The people who affected by an annexation are the property
owners and voters (if any) in the territory to be annexed. The City has the consent of all
property owners within the territory to be annexed and there are no voters in the territory
to be annexed. The City has been forced to turn aside property owners who want to
annex to the City because they are within the proposed City of Bull Mountain and did not
submit petitions prior to the date the County Board referred the incorporation to the
voters. Mr. Franzke suggests that the City's wish to annex these properties is based on
the desire to increase tax revenues. The vast majority of the property being annexed
(31.79 out of 34.82 gross acres) is publicly owned and not subject to property taxation.
Findings Related To Written Comments and Oral Testimony of Lisa Hamilton-Treick
4
20. Ms. Hamilton-Treick submitted written comments on September 26, 2006. Ms. Hamilton
first argued that Washington County has not consented to the inclusion of the county
road. Publicly owned property may be included in an annexation and is not counted in
the calculation of consents unless the public owner specifically consents or objects. ORS
222.170(4). The County's lack of consent is relevant to whether the City counts the road
in the total property area, but does not otherwise affect the annexation.
21. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the proposed boundary creates islands and an irregular
boundary. The Council finds that the boundaries of the City are sufficiently regular to be
consistent with Comprehensive Plan 10.1.2. The regularity standard in the
Comprehensive Plan standard is expressly related to whether police will be able to
respond in an emergency situation without difficulty. The City Council finds that the fact
that the vast majority of the property being annexed will be City owned and administered
means that there will be no difficulties for the police in emergency situations. The only
"islands"created are three properties that will be outside Tigard City limits but will be
cut off from county, and possibly future City of Bull Mountain, areas only by Sunrise
Lane.
22. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the proposed boundaries will prevent four property
owners from being included in the proposed City of Bull Mountain. Any property that is
not included in the annexation but is included in the boundaries of the proposed City of
Bull Mountain will be included within the City of Bull Mountain if the voters improve
incorporation. As to the creation of islands,the City does not intend to use the island
annexation process to annex territory if the island is created only by a road or a narrow
strip of property.
23. Ms. Hamilton-Treick questioned the existing zoning designation of the property and the
continued application of the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The property is currently
zoned R-7 under the County's adoption of Tigard zoning. The annexation will not
change the zoning. The ordinance does not provide that the Bull Mountain Community
Plan will cease to be applicable to the property, so it will remain in effect as to the
property.
24. Ms. Hamilton-Treick asked when the City will provide notice to LCDC of any change in
zoning or plan provisions that affect the property. The City will provide notice if and
when the zoning or plan provisions are changed. The questions asked by Ms. Hamilton-
Treick do not provide any basis for denying the annexation petitions.
25. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the City's record on Goal 5 resource protection is poor.
The City Council disagrees with her statement. However, nothing in her argument relates
to any applicable standard or criterion.
26. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the City Council did not set a date for the hearing and
that an election is therefore required. The statutory requirement is to hold a hearing, and
the City did hold a hearing. Ms. Hamilton-Treick appeared at the hearing. While ORS
5
222.120(2) does refer to the legislative body fixing the date for a hearing, the City
Council has delegated authority to set all agenda items, including hearings, to the City
Manager. City Council Groundrules, adopted by Resolution 04-83. The matter was set
for hearing by the City Manager, using the authority delegated by the Council.
27. Ms. Hamilton-Treick stated that a county commissioner stated that the property should be
in the proposed City of Bull Mountain. That statement does not relate to any applicable
approval standard or criterion. Ms. Hamilton-Treick further argues that the proposed
City of Bull Mountain and the City of Tigard must work together,presumably on
developing a portion of the City of Tigard property as a regional park. If the City of Bull
Mountain is formed,the Tigard City Council anticipates that Tigard and Bull Mountain
will work together and cooperate on a wide range of issues.
28. Ms. Hamilton-Treick asked that the record be kept open for seven days. The City
Council granted that request.
29. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the City should put the annexation on hold pending the
vote on incorporation. The City can proceed with this annexation because the petitions
were received before the incorporation was referred to the voters.
30. Ms. Hamilton-Treick submitted a letter from a deputy legislative counsel to
Representative Jerry Krummel. That letter expressly states that the sole purpose of the
letter is to assist members of the legislature and that it is not to be considered or used as
legal advice by any other person. The City will not consider the letter or use it as legal
advice.
31. Much of Ms. Hamilton-Treick's oral testimony was the same as her written comments.
None of the additional statements in her oral testimony addressed any applicable standard
or criterion.
Findings Related to Oral Testimony of Kinton Fowler
32. Kinton Fowler testified at the Septemer 26, 2006, hearing. He suggested that the City
hold off on the annexation until after the November 7 election to avoid a legal dispute
and to get the relationship between the City of Tigard and the proposed City of Bull
Mountain off to a good start. Mr. Fowler did not argue that the City was legally
precluded from going ahead with the annexation.
Findings Related to Oral Testimony of Linda Rogers
33. Ms. Rogers questioned the suitability of the property for a park. The proposed park
would be a nature park rather than a park with developed athletic fields. Her testimony
did not raise any issue relevant to any applicable standard or criterion.
6
Supplemental EXHIBIT B
y 0,6 0 l�?
....,� -:sT 3.:cam
September 25,20M
Clary pagenetedw,Associate Planner
PWWnq Department
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blind.
'ligand,OR 07223
RE: Request for anne*Uw into fire City of Trgard
Dear Gary-
Due to aonslderaiions regard'ng the develop ywd requirements for fnY PmPo6W Pro1Gd
of Brentwood Eetdes(Tigard Case File#SL*rAoo8-M3).1 find that 1 must
r9speeffupy withdraar my request to be indudod in the properties to be annexed by the
City of Tigard.
Thar*you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
John O.Noffz,Jr.
Owner,Brentwood Homes
p '22 06 06: 04p Rep .Terra Krummel 5035702885 P.2
ANN Boss
f y, twCOURTSTMESi81
LEp(8AT)YE COUNB 1�. (� SALEM(SUa A 213 97,301-AWS
7, 0W
WWWJM*1XiCLw.uc
C.1
- 7 STATE OF OREGON
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL COMMITTEE
September 20,2006
Representative Jerry Krummel
7544 SW Roanoke Drive N
Wilsonville OR 97070
Re:Annexation and Incorporation Priority
Dear Representative Krummei:
You asked about the legality of proceedings to annex territory that are initiated after
proceedings to incorporate a new city have commenced. The situation involves a petition to
incorporate the proposed new City of Buil Mountain and a subsequent petition of the City of
Tigard to annex all or part of the same territory.
If the proceedings of both municipalities are lawfully undertaken,the proceedings of both
municipalities may be maintained and none of the proceedings are void ab initio, or void from
the very inception of the act.' However, when "two municipal bodies are lawfully and fully
organized, it is clear that both cannot exist for the same purpose and exercise the same
authority over the same territory: The only basis for the courts to intervene In the otherwise
lawful proceedings of either municipality Is to "prevent the abuses that would arise when two
governmental powers are attempting to exercise authority over the same territory."3 Under those
circumstances and modeled on the court's analysis of the priority of courts that share concurrent
jurisdiction, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the first municipality to exercise
jurisdiction obtains priority to complete its proceedings and that the second municipality"as a
matter of policy" may not Interfere with the first municipality's proceedings while those
proceedings are pending° To that end, while both proceedings are pending, the first
municipality may seek and be entitled to have the second municipality enjoined, or ousted in
quo warranto proceedings,while the first municipality's proceedings are pending.5
Because the governing body of Washington County approved the petition to incorporate
the City of Bull Mountain and set an election date, appropriate parties who favor incorporation
would appear to be entitled to temporary Injunctive relief to delay the City of Tigard's
proceedings to annex the same territory. The injunction might properly be made permanent if
the electors approve incorporation at the scheduled election. in the absence of injunctive relief,
both proceedings may continue, and, if the electors reject incorporation, the City of Tigard's
annexation proceedings take effect it completed in accordance with the legal requirements for
annexation.
'Landis v City of Roseburg,243 Or.44(19"(oitations omittedj.
2 Id at 48.
3 Id at 62-
4 Id at 50.
S/d at 51.
kloprA07Ua12"br=dw
22 06 06:04p Rep Jerrtj Krummei 5035702865 p. 1
woitti�VVv ta.vo snn —
r
R"sent Wva Jerry Krummei
Seowber2o.2t}o8
Page 2
The opinions written by the Legislative Counsel and the staff of the Legislative Counsel's
office are prepared solely for the purpose of assisting members of the Legislative Assembly in
the development and consideration of legislative matters. in performing their duties, the
Legislative Counsel and the members of the staff of the Legislative Counsel's office have no
authority to provide legal advice to any other person, group or entity. For this reason, this
opinion should not be considered or used as legal advice by any person other than legislators in
the conduct of legislative business. Public bodies and their officers and employees should seek
and rely upon the advice and opinion of the Attorney General, district attorney, county counsel,
city attorney or other retained counsel. Constituents and other private persons and entities
should seek and rely upon the advice and opinion of private counsel.
Sincerely,
ANN BOSS
_.. _.. _ Legislative Counsel
By
B.Harrison Conley
Deputy Legislative Counsel
k lopM07W12sa bho.doo
D66 �P � �
Ark
Lisa Hamilton-Treick
13546 SW Beef Bend Rd.
Tigard, OR 97224
September 26, 2006
Mayor Dirksen and Councilors
13125 SW Hall Blvd. .
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: 41 Acre Cach Creek Annexation
Dear Mayor Dirksen and Members of the Council:
As a resident of unincorporated Bull Mountain and as a Co-Chief Petitioner
for the proposed City of Bull Mountain I object to this annexation and
Tigard's attempt to remove territory from the proposed city boundary.
Significant steps have been taken (and accepted by Washington County) by
members of the community, over several months, in an effort to place
incorporation before the voters on November 7, 2006.
1) The Economic Feasibility Statement was submitted to Washington
County on May 25, 2006, along with other required documents necessary to
begin the incorporation process.
2) On May 30, 2006, 776 petition signatures were submitted to Washington
County. The required 10%of the registered voter's signatures, from within
the proposed boundary, were verified.
3) June 8, 2006 Washington County Board of Commissioners voted to move
forward with public hearings on the incorporation proposal.
4) Three public hearings were held; on August 8, 2006 Washington County
Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to place incorporation before
the voters within the proposed boundary.
I raise the following questions and issues regarding this proposed annexation:
1) There is a lack of consent or petition from Washington County for
inclusion of the county road.
2) The proposed boundary creates islands and an irregular boundary
which is contrary to Tigard's Comp Plan 10.1.2 which provides that
approval shall be based on findings with respect to the following: 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 the City.
Tigard's plan creates islands and prevents four property owners from
being included in the new city boundary. Where does this leave their
vote on November 7, 2006 election only six weeks from now? One
large property owner has recently withdrawn his consent to annex.
This again alters the boundary.
3) The report and the proposed ordinance state that the property is
presently zoned county R-6 and will be changed to a comparable city
R-7 with the annexation by operation of the TDC 18.320.020. I ask
that staff clarify why the designation is not R-7 now under County
Ordinance 487?
4) Historically, Tigard has ignored the Bull Mountain Community Plan,
or has offered annexation as a means to avoid compliance with the
BMCP. What is the city's position on the Bull Mountain Community
Plan as it relates to this annexation? Why doesn't it apply now under
the county ordinance?
5) If the zoning and plan provisions change from county to city then a 45
day advance notice to LCDC is required under ORS 197.610. When
will the city provide such notice?
6) Tigard's track record on Goal 5 resource protection is very poor. The
areas proposed for annexation to Tigard are acknowledged by Tigard
to have Goal 5 resources. Under Tigard's jurisdiction the level of
protection will certainly decrease and will potentially cause
irreparable harm to the land by compromising the natural resources
and impacting neighboring properties and property owners.
7) Per ORS 222.120(2), if Council chooses not to submit annexation to a
vote of the electors of the city, it shall set a date to hold a hearing
where the electors may appear. Since the Council has taken no action
with respect to this proposal, including not setting a date and ordering
the hearing, this hearing does not dispense with the requirement for an
election.
8) There are competing and unresolved jurisdictional issues which must
be settle through Washington County Circuit Court or through the
Land Use Board of Appeals, should Tigard choose to move forward
with this annexation.
9) Washington County Commissioner Dick Schouten wisely stated
during the incorporation hearings, that the best way to provide for
parks in the Bull Mountain area is to keep the Cach Creek nature area,
Tigard's property, and the Tigard Water District property in the new
city boundary, where the combined acreage may be large enough to
qualify as a regional park. The area could be best served if the new
City of Bull Mountain and Tigard must work together to provide the
land, improvements and maintenance dollars.
CIO)Since this is a quasi-judicial hear, I request under ORS 197.763, that
the record remain open for a minimum of seven days to allow
introduction of additional evidence, arguments or testimony.
�13� t�� , G.`tt 4 .5; x. ;v,.� - -A-U'
I request the Tigard City Council place this annexation on hold until after
the November election. The incorporation proceeding was initiated prior
to the annexation proceeding. Washington County has prior jurisdiction
and Tigard cannot proceed until after the election and then only if the city
is not approved.
Sincerely,
Lisa Hamilton-Treick
September 26, 200 _ ...
City of Tigard :r
Public Hearing
Testimony of Richard A. Franzke '
Re: Proposed annexation of 4l -acres on Bull Mountain
I reside at 14980 Sal 133"' Avenue
Bull Mountain, Oregon 97224
I testify this evening t® remonstrate against the
City of Tigard's actions in annexation of 41 acmes of land
located within the boundaries ®f the proposed new City ®f
Bull Mountain.
The parties seen to agree that "first in time has first in
right". ORS 2310031(1) provides that before circulating
a petition to incorporate a new cityg the petitioners shall
file with the county clerk a petition for incorporation. The
statute provides that the clerk shall date and time stamp
the petition and shall immediately send two copies t® the
county commission.
I believe that the date and time stamping ®f the incorporation
petition marks the beginning of the incorporation process.
These actions were taken before the city commenced it's
effort to annex the subject property. Accordingly, I
believe the residents of Bull Mountain will ultimately prevail
in the litigation.
The litigation, however, is NOT what I want to address this
evening . What I want to address is the "wrongness" of the city's
action - it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Has this council no sense
of decency? Has it no respect for the will of the citizens who
would be affected by it's actions? Must the lust for more tax
revenue trump basic fairness?
I urge the council to do the RIGHT thing: stop the
annexation effort immediately and abide the outcome of
the incorporation vote on November 7th.
;Tichhank you
ar ranzke `�--
CONFMMATION OF CONSENT TO ANNEXATION
On July 24,2006, the Intergovernmental Water Board(IWB) signed petitions and consents to
annexation to the City of Tigard for properties then shown on Washington County tax maps as:
2S 105DB00400
2S 105DB06100
2S 105DB06200
S2105DC00100
2S I05DC00200
2S 105DC00300
2S I05DB00400
The City received those petitions and consents no later than August 1, 2006. The IWB petition
and consent was on behalf of the IWB and its members. The I"was acting for the City of
Tigard in submitting the petitions and consents.
On August 7, 2006, the City published notice of a hearing on an annexation that included the
above-referenced properties. That notice listed the City as the applicant and stated that the
applicant is seeking annexation of property into the City of Tigard, including the above-listed
properties. The notice also served as a written consent of the City to the proposed annexation.
With the recording of certain property transactions, some of the tax lots listed above have been
consolidated or reconfigured. The City is currently listed as the owner on title to the following
properties, all of which are included in the properties listed above:
2S105DB06100
2S 105DB06200
2S105DC00300
2S 105DB00400
The City was also the title owner to these properties at the time that IWB signed and submitted
the petitions/consents to annexation.
The City confirms that IWB had authority to consent to the annexations for all interests of the
City of Tigard in any and all of the properties. The City hereby restates that it consents to the
annexation as to all property that it holds title to and as to any other interest in any of the
properties.
Dated this 261"Day of'� ptember 2006
CITY F T GARD
A
Carol,
Please enter the attached documents into the Cach Creek Annexation Record*...,"., -
1. July 20,2006, Intergovernmental Water Board Agenda
2. July 20,2006, Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes
3. July 19,2006,Letter from King City Mayor Faes to the Intergovernmental Water
Board Chairperson, Bill Scheiderich, recommending the IWB execute annexation
4. Revised July 19, 2006, Letter from King City Mayor Faes to the
Intergovernmental Water Board Chairperson, Bill Scheiderich, recommending the
IWB consent to annexation
If you have any questions,please contact me. Thanks!
Greer x 2595
o
Intergovernmental Water Bard
Special Meeting
Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area
OP.ra � �
v t r �`' s..
� �17'�
When: Where:
Thursday, July 20, 2006 Tigard Water Building
5 P.M. 8777 SW Burnham Street
Tigard, OR 97223
1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions
Call the meeting to order, staff to take roll call.
2. Annexation of the Clute, Menfor Reservoir and Cach Properties into the City
of Tigard—Brian Rager
Consider a motion to annex the Clute, Menlor Reservoir and Cach properties into
the City of Tigard and to authorize the IWB Chair to execute an annexation
request on behalf of the Board.
3. Next Meeting—August 9, 2006, 5:30 p.m. - Water Auditorium
4, Adjournment
Motion for adjournment.
Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session. If an
Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced
identifying the applicable statute. 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 992.660(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.
Intergovernmental Water Board
Special Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2006
Tigard Water Building
8777 SW Burnham Street
Tigard, Oregon
Members Present: Patrick Carroll (arrived 5:04 p.m.), Beverly Froude, Bill
Scheiderich, Dick Winn and Sydney Sherwood (alternate for
Tom Woodruff)
Members Absent: Tom Woodruff
Staff Present: Assistant Public Works Director Brian Rager
Water Quality & Supply Supervisor John Goodrich
lWB Recorder Greer Gaston
9. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 5:01 p.m.
2. Annexation of the Clute, Menlor Reservoir and Cach Properties into the City
of Tigard
Commissioner Scheiderich stated the Board was considering a consent to annexation
and added the Board was not taking public comment at this meeting. He noted the
Board had heard public comments on this issue at its July 12, 2006, meeting and he
had acted on those comments.
Commissioner Scheiderich addressed the following issues:
Consent to Annexation/Public Process
Commissioner Scheiderich emphasized the Board was not annexing the properties in
question. He announced he had spoken with Washington County Counsel and
confirmed the issue under consideration was whether the Board wanted to consent to
annexation. This does not mean the properties will be annexed. He noted the actual
annexation process would be a land use matter handled through the City of Tigard and
this process would require a public hearing. The annexation decision could be
appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals.
Ownership
Commissioner Scheiderich emphasized any action taken by the Board would not affect
the ownership of property.
Intergovernmental Water Board July 20,2006
1
Note: Commissioner Carroll arrived at 5:04 p.m.
Shared Ownership
Commissioner Scheiderich commented the City of Tigard has deemed the members of
the Board as having an ownership interest in the properties. He added the City, as the
managing agency, could have bypassed this process and asserted it had sufficient
ownership to initiate the annexation on its own. In asking the TWD and two other cities
to go through this process, the City was allowing for more consideration than required.
Urgency
Commissioner Scheiderich stated the City of Tigard's position was that water assets,
like the reservoir, are very important and the possibility of turning these assets over to
another city is too much of an unknown. The Bull Mountain petition of incorporation
compelled Tigard to decide whether to leave the water properties in the unincorporated
area, where they may end up within the boundaries of a new city, or to annex them
now.
Impact of Boundary Changes
Commissioner Scheiderich stated the point of the upcoming Bull Mountain
incorporation public hearings is solicit input, regarding boundaries and other issues,
from cities or other entities that may be affected by the incorporation. Commissioner
Scheiderich reported, according to County Counsel, changing the boundaries would
not affect the feasibility study. The purpose of the hearings is to decide what the
boundaries should be and redrawing the boundaries would not put a stop to
incorporation.
Attempt to Disrupt Incorporation
Commissioner Scheiderich said he did not believe the annexation was an attempt to
undermine incorporation. He added he would have serious reservations about
supporting the consent to annex if he believed this to be the case.
Tax Revenue
Commissioner Scheiderich stated annexation of the properties would not affect the tax
revenue of the new city, since properties owned by the City and the TWD are not
taxable.
Parks
Commissioner Scheiderich explained Metro had allocated money to purchase some of
the property, and although this was public money, Tigard determined how and where
the money was spent. He doubted Tigard would single out non-city residents when it
came to using the park and added any parks created from the annexed parcels would
be regional assets.
Motion and Positions
Commissioner Scheiderich asked for a motion giving the Board's consent to
annexation of the Clute, Mentor Reservoir, and Cach properties to the City of Tigard
Intergovernmental Water Board July 20,2006
2
and authorizing the Chair to sign the consent to annexation. Commissioner Carroll so
moved and Commissioner Sherwood seconded the motion.
Commissioner Scheiderich asked the Commissioners to state their position.
Commissioner Carroll reported in order to protect water assets, the City of Durham
recommended the annexation of the Menlor Reservoir, Clute property and Cach
properties into the City of Tigard.
Commissioner Winn, as the King City representative, reported he had been directed to
recommend approval of consent to annexation. He stated his initial objection was the
IWB should not be in the business of annexing properties and the Board should not be
used by the City of Tigard for this purpose. Commissioner Winn concluded that given
Commissioner Scheiderich's assessment of the property situation, the consent to
annex made sense.
Note: On 7-26-06 King City submitted a revised letter dated 7-19-06 changing the
wording of their previous memo from "The City Council of King City recommends that
the IWB execute annexation . . ."to "The City Council of King City recommends that
the IWB consent to annexation . . ."A copy of the revised letter is on file in the IWB
record.
Commissioner Sherwood, representing the City of Tigard, explained Tigard needed to
protect and continue taking care of the water district property within Tigard city limits,
as opposed to having the property reside within some other city.
Commissioner Froude stated she would abstain from the vote. She represents the
TWD and the District had not made a recommendation.
The motion was approved by a majority vote of 4-0-1, with four yes votes and one
abstention by Commissioner Froude.
Note:item #3, Next Meeting--August 9, 2006, 5:30 p.m. - Water Auditorium, was not
discussed.
4. Adjournment:The meeting was adjourned at 5:12 p.m.
Greer A. Gaston, IWLB Recorder
Date: &aazT 9
Intergovernmental Water Board July 20,2006
3
KING CITY
15200 SW.116th Avenue,}Ging City,Oregon 97224.2698
Phone.(508)94-4082•FAX(503)6393771
7/19/2006
A,tty.Bill Scheiderich,Chairman
Intergovernmental Water Board
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97224
Dear Chairman Scheiderich:
The City Council of.King City recommends that the MR execute annexation of the
Menlor Reservoir Site,Clute property and Cach properties into the City of Tigard.
harles RK Sine
aes
Mayor
KING CITY
16900 3W.116th Avenue,King City,Oregon 97224-2693
Phone:(603)639-4082•FAX(603)689.3771
7/19/2006
07-26-06PO4 : 23
Atty.Bill Scheiderich,Chairman
Intergovernmental Water Board
City of Tigard
13125 SW Halt Blvd.
Tigard,Oregon 97224
Dear Chairman Scheiderich:
The City Council of King City recommends that the MR,consent to annexation of the
Menlor Reservoir Site,Chute pwperty and Cach properties into the City of Tigard.
Sincerely;-
Charles K.Faes
yor
{axed &s ra s&
Chan ;� Yfv- ws&, rn�
/W
UeLutE aAnexa:r4,iw,.
Sep 30 06 11 : 31a John S. Molloy 5035219135 p. l -
TG, Cie
S03 5a l �
.y
a 13LIll mcufl?�C' � L'j � �Cejld he.
&Lo e c Y- Ve
/asp'
i7
G� ��hvzli � rsSi�TIc ,
10/03/2006 TUE 14:55 FAX iR6800 Q001/003
1., r
LAW OFFICES OF
JOSSELSON, POTTER &ROBERTS
425 NW 10TH AVENUE,SUITE 306 . .
PORTLAND,OREGON 97209
Telephone: (503) 228-1455
Facsimile: (503)228-0171
FAX COVER SHEET
FAX NUMBER:
DATE:
TIME Z
NO. PAGES: (including cover sheet)
TO: Emily Eng
FROM: Larry Derr
:I;:J;:k:,l••Y,. ::I::l::g:$:k=!=if .y:!:,:$:,:?:a:!::!: :Y:1::;;:�::�:�:,:!: ;:!:.:t::r:, .::r:l::i::i:..1:. .>!:. ,:L:I:•!;•',.:;::l:tc�x:!�,:I:.:;c:Y.:. . .:k:,:!::!::Y:r:.... . .
MESSAGE
Please include the attached letter in the record for the Cach Creek annexation. Thank you.
This fax is also being sent by regular snail. X This is only being sent by fax.
The information contained in this fax is confidential and is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain information protected by the
attorney-client privilege.
If you do not receive all pages,please call(503)228-1155 and ask for Terri or Linda,
10/03/2006 TUE 14:56 FAX iR6800 9002/003
lav OffiCES of
JOSSELSON, POTTER & RObERTS
THE GREcoRy • SUITE 306
425 NW 10Th AVENUE
PoRTIA-d, OREGON 97209
TE(EpIAONE: (503) 228-1455
BY FAX 503-598-1960
Tigard City Council
Attn: Emily Eng
Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Proposed Cach Creek Annexation
Mayor Dirksen and Members of the Council:
I represent Lisa Hamilton-Treick in connection with the above described
annexation proposal. My client opposes the annexation. This letter supplements material
provided to the Council by Ms. Hamilton-Trieck and other opponents, all of which raise
issues that inust be addressed by the Council before it attempts to annex this property.
The threshold issue is whether the City can proceed at all until the result of the
incorporation election for the City of Bull Mountain is known. The incorporation
proceeding was initiated with the filing of valid signed petitions and a map of the
proposed annexation territory with Washington County on May 30, 2006. On June 6,
2006 the Board of County Commissioners set hearing dates for July 25,August 1 and
August 8,2006 and ordered the giving of notice of the hearings. On August 8 the Board
adopted an order to place the incorporation on the November 7, 2006 ballot. Notice of
the action pursuant to Metro Code was subsequently given. No appeals were filed to
LUBA or under Metro procedures within the prescribed times.
The territory of the proposed annexation is entirely within the area originally
proposed for incorporation by the petition map and the area included in the Board order.
The City has taken no actions to initiate this annexation that are prior in time to the
incorporation procedures. The City does not have authority to proceed with the
annexation unless and until the incorporation vote fails to favor the incorporation.
Proceeding in the interim is also in violation of Metro Code sections 3.09.040(a)(1)
because the City does not have jurisdiction to proceed, 3.09.050(d)(5)because doing so
in the face of a competing and prior annexation proceeding is not consistent with the
orderly provision of public facilities and services,and 3.09.050(d)(7)because of the
violation of state law in doing so.
LAWRENCE R. DERR
MAIL )pR@jpRlnw,coM
FACSIMI(E: (5O3) 228-0171 OF COUNSEL. E-
10/03/2006 TUE 14:56 FAX iR6800 Q003/003
JOSSEISON, POTTER & RObERTS
Tigard City Council
Attn: Emily Eng
Page 2 - Continued
Moreover, it does not appear from this record that the Council, the legislative
body of the City,provided for a public hearing necessary to avoid an election under ORS
222.120(2), or that a petition for annexation was submitted that complies with the
requirements of Metro Code 3.09.040.
Sunrise Lane is dedicated County Road. The annexation proposal does not
include a petition or consent to annexation from Washington County for the extended
length of Sunrise Lane included in the annexation or account for the property as property
included without consent. The adjacent property that was included in the Sunrise Lane
annexation is not, or within few days will not be,in the City as a result of the remand of
that action by LUBA. The Court of Appeals appeal from LUBA's decision has been
dismissed and LUBA either has or shortly will reissue its remand order. With the Sunrise
Lane annexation area excluded from the City, the proposed annexation becomes one that
relies on a long "cherry stem" approach that cannot be justified.
The City must clarify what the current status of zoning and the Bull Mountain
Community flan are for the property and what changes,if any will be made by this
annexation action. If annexation changes the zone and/or removes the Bull Mountain
Community Plan,notice must have been given to LCDC under state statute. In the case
of the removal of the Bull Mountain Community Plan,the City must explain how the
action will comply with Goal S for the identified natural resources,including trees, on the
property.
Very truly yours,
l�
awi nce R. Derr
Supplemental EXHIBIT C
Cach Creek Area Annexation -Assessed Value of Properties to be Annexed
Tax Map Property Owner Acres Assessed Value Market Value
2S105DB06100___ City of Tigard _ 1.36 ___ 0 424,810
--------------- -- - ------- --------- - -
2S105D606200 City ofTiQard-------------0.37..................... 0 __ 104,340
2S105DB00400__ Tigard Water District 11.03 0 1,316,700
------------ ---- - --------------------- ------------------
2S105DC00201___ CityofTigard__________ _1. ____
2.15 0 1,157,500
2S105DD00300 _ Dyer _ 2.56 820* _________ 980
-------------------- -- ------- - ------ - -----
2S105DD00200___ Dyer0.47 150* 180
2S105DC00300 City ofTiQard_____ __3.20 __ ____ ___ 0 ______________130
2S105DC00400 City of Tigard 0.93 0 578,210
*Forest Deferral