Loading...
City Council Packet - 09/13/2005 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 13, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I:\Ofs\Donna's\Ccpktl 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Transrn►ttal Document city council Docurn • c1-ty OF TIGARD OREGON -e n as To: u ;From:. a pate: l~ m Sending You, ❑ co ~d ntract e ❑ IGA ~oCUrr1ent Typ theC DoCucnent Name' ds Meeting of: at the Council TY~ Approved • ed:. er CopieS lnclud Numb . . • _ the Mayor.: , been signed by manager ❑ Your•document(s) have ned by the City (s) have., een'sig additional signature(s) nt with our document addit nt(s): requires an file an original tlocume ,r Q,Your docume ''obtained, all signatures have been hen ard. Records city of fig • Additional instructions: COUNCIL DOCUMENT 7RpNSMTTAL.DOC . I _ DWrORMS\CITy . CG gjf3 . , , . • AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT M btA, 'THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment") is made and effective the 13 day of Atiktmt, 2005, by and between THE CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal corporation,. ("City") and FRED W. FIELDS ("Fields") with regard to that certain. License Agreement between the parties having an effective date of /V w&Y) 69R l q Q(12-(the "Agreement" The Agreement is amended in the following particulars: 1. A new Section 2.3 is added as follows: "2.3 Effect of Weather and Other Conditions, on Use of License Area. The City and Fields agree that the rights of Fields granted by the Agreement shall be exercised . only at mutually agreeable times during! periods of dry weather in order to minimize the . impacts of such entry on the City Property. In general, the parties acknowledge and agree that such rights•will ordinarily only be exercised during the months of July, August and September 'of each calendar year during the tern of the license granted herein; but the . parties also acknowledge that other times of the year may be appropriate for the exercise of said rights depending upon then-existing conditions."' 2. Section 3 is amended to provide that, despite the passage of two (2) years from the, effective date of the Agreement, the license to use the License Area granted to. Fields continues, and shall continue, in full force and effect until such time as the Easement described in Section 3 of the. Agreement is granted by the City to. Fields,, or'Fields obtains alternate access to the property. 3.. Exhibit "C" to the Agreement is hereby amended and superceded by Exhibit "C" to this. Amendment which the parties agree correctly describes the License Area. Subject to the foregoing amendments; the Agreement is ratified and affirmed by the parties and is incorporated in this Amendment as though set forth in full'. In the event of any contradiction in the provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement, the provisions - hereof will prevail. All capitalized terms'not defined herein shall have the same meaning . provided for in the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF; this Agreement has been signed by the parties effective the date first above written. THE CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal corporation Cmi Tosser, City Manager, Fred W. Fields . J.UM WAgbrary MW Y PmP~Y P~ w Weemwftr d to items eg (082205) e8h raAslw doo . . "EXHIBIT C AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT Legal Description of Access Easement A tract of land situated in the Southeast one-quarter of Section 2 and the Southwest Quarter of Section l,Township 2 South, Range I West, Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard,. Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the 5/8" iron rod and 1 1/4" aluminum-cap in a monument box set at the intersection of SW Hall Blvd. and SW Omara St as shown on Survey No. 29031 as recorded in the Washington County Survey Records; thence N. 01' 43' 11" E, along the centerline of SW Hall Blvd., a distance of 525.04; thence S' 66° 14' 44" E, leaving said centerline, a distance of 53.94 feet to the easterly right-of-way of SW Hall Blvd. and the True Point of Beginning; thence S 66° 14' 44" E a distance of 301.29 feet, thence S . 56° 44' 12",E.a distance of 159.89 feet to the easterly line of the City of Tigard; thence N 08° 27' 36" E; along said easterly line, a distance of 33.05 feet; thence N 56° 44' 12", W a distance of 148.52 feet; thence. N. 66° 14' 44". W a distance of 315.93 feet to the easterly right-of--way of SW Hall Blvd 50.00 feet from centerline; thence S 01° 43' 11" W, along said'right-of-way, a distance of 32.36 feet'to-the true point of beginning. iAengtgesVibrary prolecNbrary property purchase agreemenMcense ag ext legal description (010605).dw. Page 1 of 2 - a' - I i Z~ OlOwi. - _ , LA- w OL I I ~°nJ ~'~y; F AµNO CREEK - ~ ~ ~ ~ \ °o ~s, NS '39'36"E 71.70' . , V I J 'F s72.22 24"w 33.10' -528'24'24"E 40.50' a L S6' T36"W 72.60' _ S72'07'24"E 44.80'. ~ S2r40'24"W 64.30' 1 Omarc _St.~ II - 13-18'36"W 3929'_ . FRW :LIEN COOPER PC FAX NO., :503-892 319? 13.2002 85:3opM P2 Plum 02 11/13/2002 16:15 5833368298 RAMS CREW LfCIZXS.E AGREEMM This Iacrnae Agreeme t V1Apument') is made and eiyec ive the/ of 2V'avombe>, 2002, by and batweezt THE C£f'Y OF T1GARD, 0 Oregon musics al corpwrat~ion caty"). and FRED W. FMWS (T101001. RecitaL► A. City is the am w of omen, real property in tM City of T*BM, i zshin&:a County, Oregon described in BWd it A a#ached (this "City property"}. B. Fields is the ow.eaat Of otha reel PmPc tty in the City of Tigard, Washingtati CMAY, Qxvgoa and do=-led inRvrlM13 Wadmd (tbte "Fieslels Property'). The Fields, propm ty is looted to the east of mat ad jaeftIto the City Ptopetty: C. $ieida desires a licaa6a to =as the Chy PTOpeby for purposes of MA'ntainhig the Pieldtt Property, and if >aecessary, An.eammeat far ingress, ogress and utiWas to service poxemial davelopment of the Fialdd Prop". The City js,v~illing to &%at Fields gush a liccm'se. By this Agroemcnt, the pad" intend to act d'ortlithe terms of aid license and possible aascmwiL NOW TSAWOn for good.md valutiblo consid4agam-the receipt and suMdm ay of idtdch are aclu%Qledged, the City Imid F odds agree as Ulm: Agreement 1. Liam to CrastAA Proeertw Fiald0, and his agents, =Ployyew, representa&e9 and omlmwmm way Mms the Caty Property o* as the !ovation dembed in Exhibit r, attached hereto (the'Voense.Aseej sad oniy for the purpose of maintaining the Fields Property- The rights Hm.ted to Fields are. subjed tp the terms and oonditions set fordL in • this A,greemeatt. " • - 2. Can a Peer 'tto B'mmim of imoe Riahta:.The £oAowing are van Wons precedent to for rw OMews to cross the City Property: 2.1 bmimms&. Fields shall obtain insurance for property damage and liab&,y m a fain, with limits, and. p" with one or morn imrwa, acceptable to the City and naming tho City as sat sddiidmW xn=vt Such. policy(ies) of insuranct shall provide, along with othm terms aomptable to the City, that no tet7. ation~ of or chactg4 it, such policyacs) may be coed without not less than thirty (30)*days' prior written ztotice to the City. Fields will pzav'do ftt the City poiicies or carries JA evidence of such insurance to Any eor&-Oise of the rights SwAad herein`, atld eliadi kwp such policy or, palicies offrmmmw in full farce artd effic t throughout the teas of this AgrwmBut and airy w armlons or ream l he6of. CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL MRBT AMERICAN TITLE INSURANcE COMP Y IV P p C ;T, • FROM : L I =N 3 - MOPM PC FaK" MCA. : 5W-E92 3292 NOV. 13, 20M 05:31PM . P3 21113/2089 16:16 5033360290 RAM15 CREW PA= L4 1 3 22 ~ggrefafo► amn o Finds will twit tuber onto the City Property auept upon not Ica than ten (10) days prior wanm varbal notice given to thn CityF.ngineer... . 3. Term ?f A&=U lCYr = of &km= if &AI&9ALWof ,.,Y; Thb A,gseement wifl'commetu,o3 tmthe Cffbch9e date heron W will continue! in oporation wrtil construction of the exte MM, of Wall Stra,ef ftm fall $owovard to the Relda Prop&V (the "Wall SttretR eaeion'). DdriOX the ttum of this Asm meld lbe Casty wm to taka cation necessary to delineate a aevointy (70) foot wide right of way for the Wall StrgdE,&t aion. If the Nall StreaRxtemaion bae not bm conx tuded by the SCOW (20" umivmky ofthe of ('ea6ve datw4this Agrem=6 the licem to use the Lioenae Area described In fthilit C will termin t Nnhvithetan&ng tlfe hregoiog, if the Wall Buret Exuation bas not bean ww&uc Bd c n or b&rc the second (2i°) aauivarsary of the eftfxve date of thin AWwaZalt, tho City will grant to Fields, prier to equttfidn of the lie M46 an GUMCa MOCieMt to provide for h000e, egress and instAllat n o£' I - utilities setvitang the Finds ItMwq. Said emorawt will be wmpdsed of the satrtberly _ f*y (50) !'bet of the CRyPropet y (the gWmod ,Area" The easement Area, whan - ' added to as adjaamd twaiy (20) Exit wide strip of pmpertp canwitly owned by Fields, will ptmridc 'a mveaty (70) foot wide own and uOity way to serve the Fields Property. Said emement will rcmabt effective until ft Wall Strio Bdmioa is complete and4rst oponed for public no. , 3.1 f ' UPCMk ww.Ation of this Agreamem by the, partle% Fields and the My will jointly engage the setvicee of Zell: & AseocWea to apprals0 tht, fit-market value of the Bsaem=i Area and tbat pordon of the twenty (20) foot wide strip ofpropeaty owm 4 by IrWds and described above that lies within the area deli nMad for oho Wall Street pJdmim The feee fbr.aW appraiW will be paid by Fields. In, coiWderation for the grant of the ee meaat doamlxd in Section 3 above, Fields-will pay to the city At diffe mw betw=the appraised value of the EEm=dnt Ares, and the appralsed value of 6a pm*a ofoe ftv* (2o) foot wide strip owned by. ' Fields that lies wAbin the dejf =iioa for the Wall St 6a 13xtenalon. Attw1wd as Exlubit D is a xPp generally dose Ming the areas ofthe deliacstkm of the Waft Stred Fxtennsioz;' tits twftty (20) foot wide strip of prop" owned by Plolds, and the Ea.4e nw Area- 4. , W malM. Fielde indea mirwa and hnids laondDa the `City &am any acid all claims, loft or low arfsi* ftm or related tv Fields' entry onto or use of tbn City Ptoperty..M duty to inda=itt)r tlta City indades fhc duty W &ftd the City, at Fields' colt, from and nab* arty rich claims, berm or loss by cam"I reasonably acceptable to the•City. - , S.' Aftomevs' Foes. If any ecdoA including action p miMt to banlrtoptoy:laws, is initiated to intMxd or $ ftm the tens of tbia .A►greement, the prov d tg ply in such aWOA shall be ca itlod, in addition to ell ot1ter rd ief that may be granted, to an award of " . . atu=gsl feCO Md WAS of action at trial and an Appeal and review. , t , FAQ, F- :5113 FR~aG 94 FPM :L1=t' %O~k',F~ 12M1T'a i 11/191Fa~2 IG', ea~3e~e~s~ - ' ~ regard ca tSse nub~~ g, eett # of the pariiaa and $abse4uejW9 Ag r-M'D ' M*e wnder~ta Od ail prim, Iuxeaf, sand e~p~e°dea e~►Y moans gad d~ aid mey ba • JOO exat s' tg acid aa~ ~pche p a p aa- lbe is b3s►distSQ~ d~Sed l eC ~ ~ sn~m~t ~gn by *4 plea 8'f~ive the s . amct►dcd . w~~° ~ Aw~m~ WA dot a °v'° M_____-- ~rea'~. Fib • a r Agenda. Item No. 4, 1 For Agenda of Dom. 2005' COUNCIL MINUTES. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 . Mayor Dirksen called the,meeting to order at 6:31- p.m. Council Present: Mayor Dirksen;•Councilors Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff. STUDY SESSION > . BRIEFING ON'MANAGEMENT. GROUP COST OF LIVING (COLA) AND COMPENSATION Human Resources Director Zod'row and Legal Counsel Bemis reviewed 'with.the City Council how compensation is set for City of f Tigard employees. Council and staff also discussed a cost of living adjustment for management/professional employees. Human Resources -Director Zodrow reviewed.. COLAs granted in,other Oregon cities.. Mayor Dirksen noted that,City Manager Prosser's contract is on the business meeting agenda for consideration. If the contract i& approved and a COLA is awarded to the Management/Professional group, then the City Manager will, also receive the COLA. After discussion and questions to staff, the Council consensus was for staff to present a request for a 2.3% adjustment on the September, 27, 2005, City Council consent agenda. > DISCUSSION'OF'COUNCIL RETREAT The retreat has been, replaced' by. a' training session, which will be held September 30, 2005. > ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 0 Receive and File Fifth Tuesday Meeting Notes - August 30, 2005 0 City Attorney submittal of revised findings (distributed) - Agenda Item' No. 6.. Changes were noted-for Item Nos. 6 and 16.' City -Attorney Ramis told the City Council that late'today the staff had. advised the City Attorneys the'status of one of"the subdivisions is different from the others so an adjustment was made to,the findings. Mr. Ramis advised the revision is not central to the basis of Council's decision. Councilor Woodruff asked if it would be grounds,for another delay. Mr: Ramis' said, "No;" but if the staff were to put new evidence into the record and respond to it, ".yes." Mr. Ramis said the better way to deal with it is to COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES = SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 page 1 recognize that it is not central to the decision, so he recommended taking out references to it to make it correct.. Mr. Ramis said that the. record does not need.to be changed to amend the findings. In response to a ' question from Mayor Diirksen, City Attorney Ramis advised that this does not have anything'to do with the consent to annex or the annexation because testimony was given by the applicant that he voluntarily is seeking annexation, which trumps any of those issues. 0' Written Testimony for Agenda Item No. 7 _ Measure 37 Waiver Hearing - September,T, 2005, letter from Charles T. Wilson distributed to the City Council. Rules of procedure for the Measure 37-claim hearing was distributed to the City Council. -The City Attorney reviewed these rules during the hearing (Agenda Item .No. 7) 0 Date for the-Joint Tigard-Tualatin,_School District, and City,'of Tualatin Meeting was set for October'7. City of Tualatin will host. City Council members were 'asked to submit agenda item ideas. 0 Reminded City Council of the League of Oregon Cities. Conference, November 10-12 - Hilton Eugene & Conference Center. The theme this year is: "Cities: Leaders'Live Here. Mayor Dirksen and Councilors Sherwood and Woodruff will attend. 0 Jillian Walker will give the Tigard Student High School'Student Envoy Report. (Krista Foltz is unable to attend) - See Agenda Item 3. 0 Council received information on the shooting simulation machine. ❑X Reminded City Council of dinner with the Indonesian Delegation,, September 26, 2005, 6:30 p.m., Hunan Pearl Restaurant 0 This is Rob Williams last meeting as the Tigard Youth Advisory Council President. See Agenda. Item 1.4 - presentation by. the Mayor to President - Williams. 0 City Manager Prosser-noted there areproblems with` issuance of visas for some members.of the Indonesian delegation; several individuals will not be able to make the.trip to Tigard as planned. Council Calendar: September 11-18 Sun-Sun Family Week Celebration 13 Tuesday Council Business Meeting- 6:30 pm; Town Hall. 20 Tuesday. Council Workshop Meeting:- 6:.30 pm, Town.Hall . 22 Thursday Citizen Leadership.Series - 9 Sessions, Thursday evenings 26 Monday Indonesian Delegation Dinner - 6:30 p.m., Hunan earl 27- Tuesday Indonesian Delegation Reception - 5:,30 p.m. - Library Community Room 27 Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall' 30 Friday Council Training Session Noon,. 10305 SW 87tH Avenue, Tigard, Oregon • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went go into Executive Session at 7:06 p.m. to consult-with counsel about current or potential litigation under ORS 192.660(2) (h).' . COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 page 2 Executive Session concluded: 7:23 p.m.' 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council & Local Contract Review. Board meeting to order, at 7:30 p.m. 1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen; Councilors Sherwood Wilson, and Woodruff. ~1.3. Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports z Mayor Dirksen presented a gift and certificate of appreciation. to Tigard Youth Advisory Council President . Rob Williams. ` President Williams's term of office is ending and his successor will be appointed soon. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for'Non-Agenda Items: None , 2, PROCLAMATIONS ' ■ Mayor Dirksen issued the following proclamation: 2.11 Proclaim September 17 to 23, 2005, as Constitution Week 3. 'CITIZEN COMMUNICATION ■ Tigard High School Student Envoy. Representative Jillian Walker gave, an update on Tigard High School activities. ■ -Mark Padgett recommended City Council consider changing the membership for Planning Commission. He recommended membership be limited to Tigard residents or property owners citing the,recent information that Washington County was changing its policy for planning in areas of interest! Currently the rules allow for two non residents to serve on the Planning Commission.. He further recommended that the current Planning Commissioner residing outside of the City limits be "grandfathered" to serve until the end of the term. Councilor Wilson and Councilor Woodruff noted they would. expect further information on the County's. position regarding planning in the area of interest. There was discussion on Mr. Padgett's proposal about changing the membership rules for the Planning Commission. In response to a' question from Councilor Sherwood-, Mr. Padgett said the City Council might want. to consider limiting membership to all Boards and Committees to Tigard residents. There was discussion on a CP04B subcommittee formed to review governance options for the Bull Mountain. area. City Manager Prosser clarified that CP04B includes a large COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 page 3 . t portion of incorporated City of-Tigard. Mayor Dirksen also said,he agreed. with Councilor Woodruff and Councilor Wilson in that he hoped discussions would still be ongoing with the County about planning responsibility for some of the unincorporated areas near Tigard. ■ Gretchen Buehner noted her concern that the joint meeting with the Tualatin Council and the Tigard-Tualatin School. District was scheduled once again on a'Planning Commission meeting, night. Mayor Dirksen said that when Tigard is hosting the meeting, City Council will avoid. scheduling on the same night as Planning Commission. Tualatin is hosting the next meeting and they have scheduled the meeting for one of their regular meeting times. Ms. Buehner also. requested that-a sign. be posted in Town Hall requesting that cell phones• be turned off. Mayor . Dirksen indicated he thought this.,was a good idea. Ms. Buehner referred to Mr:':Padgett's suggestion about Planning Commission membership. '.She recalled that originally non residents were, allowed to serve on the. Planning Commission.if they were business owners in Tigard.. ■ Cynthia Osborne, Rich Carlson, Margaret Ellenson, and Diane Wiering . noted the skate boarding event last Saturday and the supporters who turned out. They urged that Tigard move forward with the skate park.' ■ Alice Ellis Gaut requested Item 4.6 be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion. She also read information from John Frewing about "Fanno Creek Buffer Violation," which related to Consent Agenda Item No.-.6. (A copy of Mr. Frewing's statement'is on file in the City Recorder's office.). ■ Follow-up on. Previous Citizen Communication - City Manager Prosser: o Several citizens.requested protection and retention of the Gage property.for greenspace in the Bond -Park neighborhood. The property owners,have indicated they,are not interested in selling the . property to the City: " o Ron Ellis Gaut spoke of his issues regarding the City's pursuit of a railroad crossing. He received a,response at the meeting. o George and Betty Burke presented City Council with information about;a code compliance issue with their'property. City. Manager Prosser noted.progress is being made.. ! o Connie Raemakers and,,Elizabeth Peloquin appealed to the City Council and community'for support for the Skate Park. . Follow-up on Fifth Tuesday Meeting o Sewer extensions were a discussion; topic. City Manager Prosser. noted staff has contacted-.these citizens. o Zoning issues-were noted; no follow up: o Skate park support requested. o Verizon construction activity concerns noted. City Council will be receiving follow up information on Friday: o, Play structure at library requested; pojollow up., COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 13-2005 p6ge.4 . Tigard Youth Advisory Council President Rob Williams reviewed the Consent Agenda as noted below. Item 4.6 was removed for separate consideration. . 4. CONSENT AGENDA: 4.1 Approve Council- Minutes for August 9 and 16; 2005 4.2 Receive and File:.. a. Council Calendar b. Council Meeting Tentative Agenda 4.3 Approve Budget. Amendment Al. to the FY 2005-06 Budget to Increase Appropriations in the' Water, Water CIP, and Water SDC Funds for Funding,of Certain Capital Water Projects - Resolution No. 05 55 RESOLUTION 05- 55 = A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT #1 TO THE FY 2005-06 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS. IN THE 'WATER, WATER CIP, -AND WATER SDC FUNDS -FOR FUNDING OF. CERTAIN ;.CAPITAL WATER PROJECTS 4.4 Approve Budget Amendment #2 to the FY 2005-06 Budget to.Carry Over Funds . in the' Public Works Program, •for, Replacement of Vehicles = Resolution. No. 05 - 56 RESOLUTION .05-56 A' RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #2 TO THE FY 2005-06. BUDGET TO CARRY OVER FUNDS IN THE PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM FOR REPLACEMENT VEHICLES 4.5 Approve Budget Amendment '.#3 to the FY 2005-06 Budget to Increase Appropriations in the Street Maintenance. Division Budget for Purchase..of a Sign Plotter and Computer - Resolution No. 05 - 57 " RESOLUTION NO. 05-57• A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE -BUDGET AMENDMENT #3 TO.'THE FY 2005-06 BUDGET TO JNCREASE' APPROPRIATIONS IN THE STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION BUDGET FOR.PURCHASE OF A SIGN PLOTTER AND COMPUTER . 4.6 (See discussion and separate consideration below.) ; 4.7 Authorize the City Manager to Relinquish Temporary Emergency Turnaround Easements at Arbor Pointe Subdivision 4.8 Approve the Submission. of an Application fora Washington Square Mall Buffer Zone Protection Plan Grant COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.- SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 page 5 4.9 Adopt'.the National Incident Management System 'as, the Foundation for Incident Command, Coordination,, and Support Activities and Establishing" Policy that Will 'Provide ,Training for °Responsi6le City,- Personnel..- Resolution No. 06- 58 RESOLUTION ':NO. 05=58 A. RESOLUTION; ADOPTING THE" NATIONAL, INCIDENT MANAGEMENT. SYSTEM (NIMS) AS THE FOUNDATION FOR'INCIDENT COMMAND,.COORDINATION, AND SUPPORT`ACTIVITIES.AND. ESTABLISHING. POLICY THAT THE CITY OF TIGARD WILL PROVI DE APPROPRIATE NIMS TRAINING .FOR RESPONSIBLE CITY PERSONNEL ' 4.10 Local,Contract Review"-Board: a. Award a Contract for the Construction,;of the SW'Ash Avenue, Sanitary Sewer (Sewer Reimbursement District No. 35) to NW, Kodiak Construction, LLC Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded. by Councilor Sherwood, to approve . w the, Consent Agenda, except for Item 4.6; which was removed for separate consideration. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of. Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes ; Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff. Yes' Council discussed Consent Agenda Item 4.6: ; 4.6 . Amend the. November 14,.2002 License 'Agreement for Maintenance of the Fields-Propeity East of the Library Site It was noted that the access issue on -the Fields' property'has a long'history . 'The granting of access is-part of a. commitment by'the''Cityto Mr. Fields in an agreement entered into between theso'two,parties at.the time Mr.. Fields sold -property.to the Cityfor the library. In the agreement, this access. is, restricted. to certain time periods and is provided so Mr. Fields, can perform maintenance on his property, i.e:,, mowing equipment for,.fre hazard „prevention. City Engineer Duenas, in response to a question from Councilor Wilson regarding the term of the agreement; :advised that staff. is recommending ~that the agreement,be extended until'such time as Mr. Field "acquires access through Metro-owned'propertyor until a-road is'built, which provides access to his property. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ,SEPTEMBER '13,, 2005 page 6 ° -Motion by Councilor Wilson, 'sko' nded'.by Councilor "Sherwood; to approve Consent Agenda Item No': 4.6. The mbiion.was approved by a ,unanimous vote of Council present; 'Mayor. Dirksen: Yes Councilor She, Yes ' ' Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff . Yes 5. ` .INDONESIAN RESOURCE CITIES EXCHANGE REPORT Library- Director Barnes,' Durham Elementary School Teacher Davies, Clean, Water Services Water'Resources Manager.Vanderplatt reviewed their recent trip to Indonesia. 'The Cities of Samarinda and Balikpapan have made substantial progression, their pilot,water audit program. `In'addition, lesson ' plans and curriculum were presented to teachers,, which related to'the _ conservation of water and protection of the environment. City Manager Prosser noted-that travel costs are.funded: by USAid. A delegation of the ` two cities is scheduled to ,come to Tigard September 24-30, 2005, which Will` , be the last delegation to'visit as a part.of this.program. To wrap up the program, A Best Practices Conference-will be held in,indonesia'in ..December. 6. Continued from the August 23,;2005, City,Council meeting CONSIDERATION' .'OF: THE` FINAL ORDERS 'REGARDING' THE ANNEXATION OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR,PROPERTIES: ' FILE.NO.':. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION. (ZCA) 20.04-00004' FILE TITLE - MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION REQUEST: The applicant, is requesting to annex two (2) parcels of land containing 6.94'acres into the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12415. SW Beef Bend .Road,- WCTM 2S110CB,: Tax Lot 500; and (No site ,address), WCTM2S110CB, Tax Lot 100. FILE NO.. ZONE CHANGEANNEXATION (ZCA) 2005-00001 FILETITLE:, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS.3 SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION. REQUEST: ' A .,request to annex three. (3) 'parcels: of land containing. . 16,97 acres into the City of Tigard'. .'LOCATION: On the north 'side of SW Beef. Bend Road and ,the' southern 'terminus::of SW Summerview Drive: WCTM 2S109DA,'Tax..' Lot 21.00;,and'2S11OCB; Tax Lots,600,and 700.. FILE NO.- -ZONE CHANGEANNEXATION:(ZCA) 2005-00002 FILE TITLE:., WILSON RIDGE ,SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION xCOUNCIL. MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER,.!3, 2005 page 7: REQUEST: A request to annex two (2) parcels of. land containing 2.68 acres into the City of Tigard: LOCATION: 13350 and : 13400 SW Bull Mountain Road; WCTM 2S109AC, Tax Lots"100 and 200. FILE NO: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2005-00003. FILE TITLE: ALBERTA' RIDER SCHOOUSUMMIT RIDGE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION REQUEST: Annexation of 56 parcels. containing approximately 20.75 acres into the City of Tigard. LOCATION: Alberta Rider School: WCTM 2S109AC, Tax Lot 2100 and 2S.109AD, Tax Lot 1300; and Remaining Portions of Summit Ridge Subdivision: WCTM 2S109DA, Tax Lots 8500, 8600; 8700, 8800, 9400, 9500, 9600, 9700, 98002 9900, 10000, 10100, 10200, 10300, 11500, 11600, 11700, 11800, 11900, ,12000, 12100, 12200; 12300, 12400, 12500, 12600, .12700; 12800; 12900; 13000, 13400 and .1.3500, and WCTM 2S109DB, Tax Lots 1000; 1900; 2100, 2200, 2300; 2400, . 2500, 2600, 2700; 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300;' . 3400, 3500,3600,,3700, 38007 3900 and 4000. ZONING OF ALL PARCELS:, R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning' district is designed to accommodate. attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units,- at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, .and duplexes, at a minimum. lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally'. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards foe..-annexations are set out in Community Development. Code Chapters. 18.320 and 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; ORS Chapter 222; and Metro Code Chapter 3.09. ; Mayor Dirksen announced this agenda. item. City Attorney Ramis advised that the City Council had before it a draft final decision. He advised that the Council received a substituted version of the 'final decision with some slight changes in language. He advised the Council will need.to make separate motions on each of the proposed annexations. The supporting findings are the same for each annexation as the City held a combined'hearing: COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES:- SEPTEMBER 13,2005' page 8 Mayor Dirksen reminded those present that the public hearing is closed: Opportunities were given for oral testimony and written comments for which .the time period had been extended and'is now passed. All City ,Council members present indicated they reviewed the.information presented,to them and were ready to discuss and consider these annexations: Councilor Wilson suggested that,all the annexations be discussed together. City AttorneTRamis.confirmed.itwould be appropriate to discuss ; the annexations together, but the motions on each should be considered separately. Council discussion followed. Councilor Woodruff said this has been controversial.since before the vote' on Bull Mountain. Heacknowledged that some people feel very passionate about the annexations-and he respects their ability to make their view known. He noted this is a-'public process. Councilor Woodruff said he has read all the testimony and staff and attorney responses. He said that decisions need to meet certain" riteria and those'are: Is it legal; does it meet Oregon statutes and Tigard ordinances? • Does it-make sense? • 'is it consistent with Tigard and other jurisdictions? • Is it in the best interest of the. residents of Tigard? Councilor Woodruff advised. that the annexations before the City Council „ tonight meet all of those criteria: He said that this is-not anything new as., the City has done business this way as do most of the jurisdictions throughout the state: When parcels become available adjacent to a City boundary, those parcels. are annexed and become a part of the City. He acknowledged testimony. of some people who thought there was some conspiracy going.on and the City had some kind of. plans that "We were going to do something. scurrilous that was going-to.result in us annexing all of Bull Mountain against everyone's will.. And, I' ran. assure you that there. is no conspiracy process underway here. This is nothing:new...we would . be doing the same process we're doing here if this was a parcel on the other side of Tigard.". He noted the time and energy devoted by everyone and said he was ready to. move ahead. Councilor Sherwood-said-she concurred with Councilor Woodruffs comments. She said that the City was not doing anything different than. what it had been doing for years, She said thatshe read through all the, - information presented and she-agreed that there is no reason-for not ' . annexing in that the City would not be making islands, would not be annexing Beef Bend Road, and would not be annexing,Bull Mountain COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.- SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 page 9 Road. Owners of these'prope rties have asked to be annexed. She said she saw no reason not'to proceed with the annexations. Councilor Wilson said that over the course of the' hearings a lot of. testimony was heard by the City Council. 'He said it was similar to the testimony heard in opposition to the Annexation Plan, which was considered". last November.- .These properties are being proposed to be annexed under ORS 222, which is not the same as the Annexation Plan, which was under.ORS 195. The criteria for ORS 222 are simple in that ' you have to have consent of all of the property owners and 50 percent of the electors who live in the 'district'.. In-these cases, consent has been given by every one of the owners and also every one of the electors. The criteria, clearly, has been met. .,The City has the authority to annex the territories. However, this does'not-necessarily mean the City should annex.. He said that it was important at this juncture to articulate a clear policy as to why it is in the interest,of the citizens of Tigard to annex them. Councilor'Wilson said that,-for him,.it has always been fundamentally not about acquiring new territory or for control, but it has always been-about provision of urban services and how those services get paid for. He said, "In.short, it's about money." - He.advised that he often likens the City to a, large homeowners association where we elect to provide services"for ourselves and each of us pays our dues. We have a neighboring association that uses our facilities and does not pay for them'. He said that he has always felt that that inequity needs to be corrected. As long as there are territories that are urban next to cities, it will be a problem. He said that if you look at the City of7igard's Budget, the City collects about $10 million in-:property taxes each year.. Of the property taxes collected, $9 million is used to, fund the Police Department. The City'also spends General Fund money maintaining` parks. The third General Fund item is the Library, which is about $2.5.milli.on. - One-half of the Library operation, is funded through the County and the'other half is funded through property taxes: Councilor Wilson said that with regard to police, which is the big . ticket item, he said that-every" citizen.in`cities pays the County for Sheriff Patrol, but the Sheriff-Patrol does not patrol the cities. In essence, the cities are subsidizing police services in the unincorporated portions of the County. If the County was to fund the one-half officer per thousand residents, in the City that it funds in the County, then the City of.Tigard could cut its"property taxes by one-third. Councilor Wilson said that as long as this inequity exists,.then,he supports annexation and he supports the proposed annexations also'. Mayor Dirksen said that he heartily agreed with the preceding remarks Q made by the Council members and said he had nothing to add. City Attorney Ramis confirmed that the ordinance titles should be read upon City Council consideration: COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES,- SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 page'10 Council consideration: Ordinance No; 05 - 09 ,,(Mountain Estates Subdivision Annexation) Councilor.Sherwood moved for adoption of Ordinance No. 05-09: Councilor Woodruff seconded the motion. = City Recorder Wl 6atley read.fhe`folio wing:. Ordinance No. 05=09 --'An Ordinance Annexing 6.94 acres,,. approving Mountain'View, Estates Annexation, (ZCA 2004-00004), and withdrawing property from.the Tigard Water District, Washington County*Enhanced Sh'eriff's Patrol District, , -Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street:Lighting District #1; and the ' Washington County Vector Control District The motion was approved by a, unanimous roll -call vote-of Council present: Mayor. Dirksen:' Yes Councilor Sherwood:,' Yes: Councilor Wilson:. Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes Ordinance No. 05-10 (Arlington Heights 3 Subdivision Annexation) . Councilor. Woodruff moved for adoptionof Ordinance No: 05-10, ArlingtonHeights 3 Subdivision. Councilor Sherwood seconded the motion.. City. Recorder Wheatley read,the following: - Ordinance'No. 05-10 An Ordinance Annexing 16.97 acres, approving Arlington Heights'3 Annexation (ZCA 2005-00001); and withdrawing' 'r 'perty-from the Tigard Water District; 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 ; The motion was approved by :a unanimous roll 'call . vote-.,of Council 'present. Mayor Dirksen:.' , Yes COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.- SEPTEIABERn1'3, 2005 page 11 Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes. Ordinance No. 05-11 (Wilson Ridge Subdivision Annexation) Motion by Councilor Wilson to adopt Ordinance No. 05.41. Councilor Sherwood,seconded the motion. . City Recorder Wheatley.read the following: Ordinance No. 05-11 --An Ordinance Annexing 2.68 acres, approving Wilson Ridge Annexation (ZCA 2005-00002), and, withdrawing property from the Tigard Water District, 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 The :motion was approved by a' unanimous roll call vote' of Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes,, Councilor Wilson: Yes : . Councilor Woodruff ' Yes Ordinance No. 05-12 `(Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge Annexation) ; Motion by Councilor Sherwood to adopt Ordinance 05712. Councilor Wilson seconded the motion. City Recorder Wheatley read the..following:. Ordinance` No. 05-12 An Ord inance*Annexing 20.75 acres, approving Alberta Rider Elementary. School/Summit Ridge Annexation (ZCA 2005-00003), and withdrawing property from the . Tigard Water District, 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 The motion was approved by .a unanimous. roll call vote of Council' present: COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 page 12 Mayor.Dirksen: ' . Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: ' . - . Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE' ADOPTING FINDINGS TO GRANT A BALLOT MEASURE 37 WAIVER OF THE R-25 ZONING RESTRICTIONS FOR A PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF SW SCHOLLS.FERRY ROAD. AND 135. AVENUE, 'CLAIM: The Claimant seeks a waiver and/or change in the underlying. zoning and :comprehensive plan designation on 'a 10.45 acre site from the present high- density R-25 residential zoning to C-C or C-G-commercial zoning to allow a commercial shopping center, various tenants/uses, as well as retail sales, ; vehicle fuel sales and signagp of the C=C or•C-G commercial zone. The amount claimed as compensation'without such waiver or change is $4,562,360.0.0. AFFECTED REGULATION: 'Residential R-25 zoning; Comprehensive` Plan designation as residential; . Transportation System Plan and Development Code access restrictions; any other-zoning and building code restrictions or overlay zones that preclude_a commercial use; sign code restrictions. LOCA-riON: Lot 63, Hawk's Beard Townhomes'; WCTM .1S133AC,_Tax Lot 14500. On. the.south side of SW Scholls Ferry Road, between .SW.130th and'135th Avenue.. . ZONING-DESIGNATION: R-25: Medium High-Density Residential District., The R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new, attached single-family and multi-family housing units at a minimum lot' size of 1;480 square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses are.' permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. ' APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Tigard Municipal Code.Chapter 1.20. a. Mayor.Dirksen opened the"public hearing: b. City Attorney, Ramis reviewed the Rules of Procedure.. The text of these rules 'is on file with in the City Recorder's office. ' c:, 'Declarations or Challenges COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 13,2,005.' page 1.3 Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? None reported. Have all members.familiarized themselves with the application? All members presented indicated they were familiar with the application. Are there any challenges from the. audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge „ on the participation of any member of the Council? There . were no challenges. d. The Staff Report was presented by.Community Development . Department staff. The text of the Staff Report is'on file in the'City Recorder's office. e. Public Testimony • The.applicant, represented by Mike Van, 3860 SW. Boeckman Road, Wilsonville, OR 97070, spoke to the City Council in .support of the staffs recommendation, but requested that the waiver (as outlined in the proposed ordinance) be permanent and run with the land. He said he would like to withdraw the Measure 37 claim with regard to access restriction. He noted he would `agree to the CG zone requirements if the waiver is permanent and runs with the land. He said Measure 37 is moot on this point and believes it will be tested in court. • . Note: Charles T: Wilson testimony received, which will be entered into the record. • Gretchen Buehner, 13249 SW 136th Place,.Tigard,.Oregon advised she, is a resident and is. also a real estate business attorney. She said she understands the City must waive the land use regulation or pay'the landowner for reduced value of property due ;to a land use regulation. She noted her objections to allowing this parcel to be developed . commercially citing the number of similar stores that.have been built within a mile of this location. She also noted concerns with traffic,congestion. She said the types of business that.would be attracted to this site would not be in the best interests of Tigard. Eric Winger, 11090 SWI31st Place, Tigard, Oregon, testified in, opposition to a change in zoning citing the following: COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 page 14 1. Traffic congestion. He referred to a map-and described.. current traffic conditions. 2. Sight distance. concerns (relating to safe travel). 3. The proximity of wetlands, and concerns about the presence of gas tanks. Mr. Winger advised that the requested change would not be in the best interests of the, community..,, 'Wade,Longworth, 11056 SW 131St Place; regarding' concerns on the impact this proposal would have on the Summerlake area aridits' natural resources: the creek, wildlife, and drainage. Lee Sherman, 10675 SW 133rd Place, Beaverton, OR 97008, testified he has lived at this address for ten years and during 'that time, there has been a significant increase of traffic on Scholls Ferry Road. He advised of his concerns with the' proposed changes with regard to how it would impact traffic flow. He reviewed rezoning concerns and said he was. disappointed the owner was not here and noted that the owner , . lists his address.as Clackamas. He said he was, opposed to rezoning this property from residential to commercial. He said he would not Want to see another strip mall. He cited the City Council, goal for seeking parks and open space, 'which would' be a better use,of this land. He referred to current businesses located in the area, including a daycare/preschool and the potential problems that would come with a shopping center development. He referred to, the more than $4 rhillion value of the property claimed by the applicant and said he thought.that this seemed like an exorbitant amount: He. said he was totally opposed to a change in use. • Clinton Pearson; 11076 SW Eschman Way, Tigard, OR 97223, testified citing his; profession as an architect and that ` he'h'ad designed or participated in the design of retail stores including those in Bethany village and :the Woodburn stores.- He noted that he lives one block. away. He advised that'his wife was hit in a traffic accident on Scholls Ferry Road. He. said he has' a number of issues including concerns about traffic and another development similar to the types of. development already present. He noted the need to respect homeowners in the;.area including not obstructing the views from their.property. He noted the unpleasantness of looking !at blank walls as the view from the res idential,,p rope rty. He referred'to.the,importance of pedestrian friendly conditions. He COUNCIL MEETING. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER. 13, 2005 page 15 noted that the'property is. now an empty lot connected to a wetlands area and''requested a pedestrian friendly park connection. He referred to property to the west and his concerns aboutwhat.might. happen there. • Holly Clark, 10855 SW 130t" Avenue,, Tigard, Oregon 97223, said she moved into a town home in Tigard and loves Tigard. She said the community offers open space..and that she would hate to see it go away: She agreed with testimony about concerns for traffic impacts. She urged the. City Council to. consider exercising the right to eminent domain and to develop this land into a. park. ' . . . • Alice Ellis Gaut, 10947 SW Chateau Lane, Tigard, OR 97224, suggested a review to determine whether. Federal environmental regulations would be sufficient to warrant a reevaluation of consideration of a waiver of land use, regulations. She also noted concerns about fuel seepage. ' • Mr. Van responded to testimony in the.following rebuttal points: o : Mr. Grabhorn has owned this property since 1952.. He has provided property for environmental uses and also dedicated property*for right of way purposes. o Accommodations can'be made to meet City code requirements for traffic, landscaping, and screening: • Mr. Winger testified that Measure 37 has not been in effect for that long and advised that legal ramifications are still being worked'through. He urged the City Council to use caution in making a change this early and also to consider environmental impacts, which have not been.addressed. • . Ms. EllisGaut said'she did not believe that Mr. Van's rebuttal comments-were proper. • Mayor. Dirksen noted, for the record, receipt of testimony from Mr. Charles Wilson. Mr: Wilson's letter is on file in the City Recorder's office. f. Staff Recommendation:. Planning Manager Bewersdorff noted staff' also has concerns about traffic and environmental impacts. He referred to,:the site. development review process, which would apply if, the site were to be developed commercially. He further recommended thatthe waiver be granted to the person rather than to COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -'SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 page 16 run with the land as'a permanent waiver-and he referred to legal issues that might need to be resolved. Mr. Bewersdorff advised the City Council needed to make a'decision on this-matter noting that a 1807day time limit applies to this application. City Attorney Ramis clarified that the main issue before the City Council is the transferability of the waiver. If the waiver is transferred and attached to the land; then the commercial zoning becomes a legal, permitted,use. If the waiver is,granted to the.property owner, then the commercial zoning becomes a non-conforming use and is then subject to additional regulations; g. Council discussion: Councilor Wilson noted that this is the City's first Measure 37 claim and needs to be considered carefully because of precedence-setting ramifications. He noted the problem with the City's ordinance addressing Measure 37 insofar as it does not address how the value of the.land is to be determined and that the market data provided by Mr. Grabhorn does not appear to be in'line with comparable. properties.. He acknowledged that with regard to financial gain, Mr. Grabhorn has presented evidence that he could make more money on this'property if it was'developed as a commercial'use'. Councilor Wilson* said he concurred with concerns about traffic impact and that this will be the biggest problem. Community Development Director Hendryk noted; how traffic impact- fees are applied and Planning. Manager Bewersdorff described the development review process and traffic impact fee assessment. There was reference to past review by the, Plan ning.Commission with regard to traffic impacts. In addition, there was reference-to the City's ordinance relating to a property appraisal fora Measure 37 claim. Changes should be considered to clarify property appraisals and additional ways to recover costs of -impacts'. Councilor Woodruff, commented that-Mr. Grabhorn has been the property owner for 53 years. _ He noted the .City must make sure it adheres to-the law. He pointed out that the testimony received tonight would be reviewed during the design process: Councilor Sherwood advised that this is not.a land use issue before the City Council;, rather, it is a claim. She noted the-City could not pay the $4,6 million. to purchase the property. She noted her disagreement with Measure 37. Councilor Sherwood also advised that when this is to be.heard as'a land- use issue, property rights and COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES= SEPTEMBER I3, 2005, page 17. free enterprise must also'be considered. She advised-she would be in favor of granting the waiver to Mr. Grabhorn. and not to the land. Councilor Woodruff noted that this is'private property and not subject. -to eminent domain. The property owner has the ability to make choices as to how the property is to be developed. Mayor Dirksen commented on the passage of Measure 37 and noted, that, it is likely that some who are present at tonight's meeting likely . voted in favor of this measure. He: suggested that the matter before. the City Council: at this time could be the "poster child" of what Measure 37 was attempting to address and it seemed to him literally ' impossible to make. an argument against granting a waiver. In additional comments regarding voters approving Measure 37, Mayor. Dirksen agreed that there were issues that needed to be addressed with regard to property rights; however, he' believed that Measure 37. . represented taking a sledge hammer approach to an issue that could have been corrected with a scalpel. He said that if a waiver is to be granted in this instance, not all regulations will be. suspended in that the limitations.and conditions for commercial zoning must apply and those will be addressed. He concurred that the waiver should be f granted to the property! owner. - h: Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing.. i Council consideration: Motion Councilor Woodruff to adopt Ordinance No. 05-13. Councilor Sherwood seconded the motion. , City Recorder Wheatley read. the following: ORDINANCE NO. 05-13-AN ORDINANCE,ADOPTING-FINDINGS TO GRANT A BALLOT MEASURE 37 WAIVER OF THE R-25 ZONING RESTRICTIONS. TO BURTON GRABHORN FOR 10.5 ACRES AT THE INTERSECTION OF SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD - AND135T" AVENUE (LOT 63, HAWK'S, BEARD TOWNHOMES, AND TAX-LOT 14500, WCTM 1S133AC,) TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER; VARIOUS TENANTS/USES, ' . AS WELL AS RETAIL SALES, VEHICLE FUEL SALES AND SIGNAGE OF THE C-G GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE SUBJECT TO APPLYING FOR AND RECEIVING,SITE DEVELOPMENT -REVIEW APPROVAL (M372005-00003) ; The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor,Dirkseh: Yes COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER,13; 2005 page 18 Councilor-Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson:, r Yes,, Councilor Woodruff Yes 8. CONSIDER APPOINTING CRAIG PROSSER AS TIGARD CITY MANAGER' ' Council members reviewed and.commented on the public the process,for selecting a. new City Manager, which included'a nationwide search: Members of the community,assisted,the City Council in the evaluation process and two candidates were clearly:'the top choices. Mr. Prosser served as, interim City,Manager for the last several months and he has the respect. an d. admiration of people in. government in the metro area.. Mr. Prosser demonstrated to a citizen' panel.anflhe"City Council that he deserved to be appointed'to the City Manager position. The City Council was pleased that Mr. Prosser is willing to continue. to serve: Motion was made,by Councilor Sherwood to appoint Craig Prosser as Tigard City Manager. Councilor Wilson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of-Council present:. .Mayor Dirksen; : Yes ' Councilor Sherwood: Yes t, . Councilor Wilson:, Yes CouncilorWoodruff Yes City Manager.Prosser expressed 'appreciation to the City Council and the, citizens of Tigard and noted his dedication to public service. ' Mayor Dirksen administered the oath of office to City Manager`Craig Prosser., ; 9. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW, BOARD..'(LCRB).JTEM Removed from the August 9, 2005 consent agenda for separate ;,consideration'- CONSIDER AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT TO VENTURE' PROPERTIES FOR WATERLINE CONSTRUCTION THROUGH SUMMIT RIDGE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT, Assistant Public Works Director Rager'presented the staff report to the Local Contract Review :Board (LCRB):` -LCRB rules provide that when a developer ,is, required, by condition of approval`in 'a, land use action to construct public ;improvements, the City.can consider,the developer a sole source and is not required to bid the work in- a competitive process. Venture Properties was COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.- SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 1 page 19 conditionedto install an 18-inch-public transmission line through their. Summit'Ridge Subdivision development that will' support the 550-foot pressure zone improvements in that area., Venture,Prope rties completed that work and the waterline is now ready for use. The City will reimburse only for the cost of over-sizing. Mr.. Rager provided an August 26, 2005, memorandum to th&City Council explaining the LCRB rules that.provide for this reimbursement process. 'A copy of this memorandum is on file in the City Recorder's office. Mr. Rager. described his misunderstanding about the reimbursement for over-sizing. The reimbursement amount of $124,665.06 is the recommended amount regarding the costs incurred by the developer for over-sizing. A developer is to be.reimbursed for costs added fora pipe, size over 12 inches; however Condition No. 29 for the Summit Ridge Subdivision provided that the applicant would be reimbursed the difference in.cost to upsize the line from 8 inches to 18 inches. Mr. Rager clarified ,(which is a. change from the staff report on,this item) that the expenditure related to this item can be shown in the 2004-05 fiscal year' since that is when the. expense occurred. ; Motion by LCRB Chair Dirksen, seconded by,Board Member Sherwood, to' authorize reimbursement to Venture Properties for the construction-of a large diameter transmission waterline through the'Summit Ridge Subdivision development. Thd`motion was approved by a' unanimous vote of LCRB members present: LCRB Chair Dirksen: Yes -LCRB Board Member Sherwood: ' Yes LCRB Board Member Wilson: Yes LCRB Board Member Woodruff Yes 10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None 11. NON AGENDA ITEMS None 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Not held. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -,SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 page 20 ed at 10:16 p.m: '-A Council meeting adjourn following The City. . r,1eeting: Was held immediately 13. ADJOURNMENTI meat Agency City Center Develop the Council meeting. r: suL~ City Re Or Catherine Whe.atley, Attest: yor ity of Tigard . Date: f T page.21. UTES -SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING. MIN OGreeter: Jim Hendryx Revised 9/13/05 - Added Executive Session Topic. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 6:30 p.m. CITY-OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on. an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor' at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen. Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in*any order after 7:30 p.m: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with' impaired hearing, and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the 'Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call ..503-639-41.71,, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request,, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual-interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow . as,much lead time as possible. - Please notify the City of your need by 5:00. p.m. on thee... Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or '684-2772 (TDDTelecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA' COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 13'; 2005 page 1, A-.G EN DA ` TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING S EPTEMBER ' 13, 2005. 6:30 PM " • STUDY SESSION > BRIEFING ON MANAGEMENT GROUP COST OF LIVING (COLA) AND COMPENSATION ■ Administration. Staff > DISCUSSION QF'COUNCIL RETREAT ■ Administration Staff EXECUTIVE" SESSION: The Tigard City Council will, go into Executive Session to consult,with counsel about current or potential litigation under ORS 1.92.660(2) (6).- All discussions are confidential, and those present,may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend" Executive Sessions, as provided.by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose"any information discussed: No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision: Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 'BUSINESS MEETING 1:1 Call to Order`- City Council & Local Contract Review Board :1.2. Roll. Call , 71.3' Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & ,Liaison Reports 0: 'Mayor Dirksen - Presentation to Tigard Youth Advisory Council President. Rob Williams' 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items . 7:35 PM 2. PROCLAMATIONS ■ Mayor Dirksen 2.1 Proclaim September-. 17 to. 23, 2005 as. Constitution Week COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 page 2 7:40 PM 3. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) ■ Tigard High School Student •Envoy Representative (Krista Foltz is not able to attend, Report will be presented by ]illian Walker.) ■ Follow-up on Previous Citizen Communication ■ Follow-up on Fifth Tuesday Meeting Tigard Youth Advisory Council President Rob Williams.to.review the Consent Agenda: 7:45 PM 4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be. enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item . be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes for August 9 and 16, 2005, - 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Council Meeting Tentative Agenda 4.3 Approve Budget Amendment #1 to the FY 2005-06 Budget to Increase Appropriations. in the Water; Water CIP, and Water SDC Funds for Funding of . Certain Capital Water Projects - Resolution No. 05 - 55 RESOLUTION 05- 55 A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT #1 TO' THE FY'. 2005-06 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS 1N THE, WATER, WATER CIP, AND WATER SDC FUNDS FOR FUNDING OF CERTAIN CAPITAL WATER PROJECTS 4.4 Approve Budget Amendment .#2 to -the FY 2005-06 Budget to Carry Over Funds in the Public Works Program for Replacement of Vehicles = Resolution No. 05 - 56 RESOLUTION 05-56 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #2, TO THE -FY 2005-06 BUDGET TO CARRY OVER, FUNDS IN THE' PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM FOR REPLACEMENT VEHICLES 4.5 'Approve Budget :Amendment #3 to the FY 2005-06 Budget to Increase Appropriations. in the Street Maintenance Division Budget for Purchase of a , Sign Plotter and Computer - Resolution No. 05 - 57 RESOLUTION NO. 05-57 - A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT #3 TO THE FY 2005-06 BUDGET TO, INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION ,BUDGET FOR PURCHASE OF A SIGN PLOTTER AND COMPUTER COUNCIL AGENDA.- SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 / page 3' 4.6 Amend the November 14, 2002 License Agreement for'Maintenance of the Fields Property East of the Library Site 4.7 Authorize the City Manager to' Relinquish Temporary' Emergency Turnaround Easements at Arbor Pointe Subdivision 4.8 : Approve the Submission of an Application for a Washington Square Mall Buffer Zone Protection Plan Grant 4.9 'Adopt the National Incident Management System as 'the Foundation for Incident Command, Coordination, and Support. Activities and Establishing .Policy that Will Provide Training for Responsible City Personnel - Resolution No. 05,- 58 RESOLUTION, NO 05-58 - A RESOLUTION ADOPTING 'THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NI MS) AS THE FOUNDATION FOR INCIDENT COMMAND, COORDINATION, AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES AND ESTABLISHING POLICY THAT THE CITY OF TIGARD WILL PROVIDE APPROPRIATE NIMS. TRAINING -FOR RESPONSIBLE CITY PERSONNEL. 4.1.0. Local Contract Review Board: a. Award a Contract for the Construction of the SW Ash Avenue Sanitary Sewer (Sewer Reimbursement. District No. 35) to NW Kodiak Construction, LLC • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to. be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has. voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:50 PM 5. INDONESIAN RESOURCE CITIES EXCHANGE REPORT a.. Staff Report: Library Staff b. Council Discussion k 8:05 PM 6.. Continued from the August 23, 2005; City'Council meeting - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ORDERS REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR PROPERTIES: FILE NO.: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION. (ZCA) 2004-00004 FILE TITLE: MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to annex two . (2) parcels of land COUNCIL AGENDA -'SEPTEMBER 13, 2005. page 4, containing -6.94 acres into the City of Tigard. LOCATION: ' 124.15 SW Beef Bend Road,, WCTM 2S1 I OCB, Tax Lot 500; and - (No site address), WCTM'2S110CB, Tax Lot 100. FILE NO.: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION'(ZCA) 2005-00001 FILE TITLE:. ARLINGTON HEIGHTS 3 SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION REQUEST: A request to annex three (3) parcels of land containing 16.97 acres into the City of Tigard. .LOCATION: On the north side of SW' Beef Bend Road and the southern terminus of SW Summerview Drive. WCTM 2S 109DA, Tax Lot 2100; and 2S 11 OCB, Tax Lots 600 and 700. FILE'NO.: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2005-00002 FILE TITLE: WILSON RIDGE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION REQUEST: A request to annex two (2) parcels of land containing 2.68 acres into the City`of Tigard. LOCATION: 13350 and 13400 SW Bull Mountain Road; WCTM 2S 109AC, Tax Lots 100 and 200. FILE NO.: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2005-00003 FILE TITLE: ALBERTA RIDER . SCHOOL/SUMMIT- RIDGE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION 4 REQUEST;. Annexation. of 56 parcels containing approximately 20.75 acres into the City of Tigard. . LOCATION: Alberta Rider School:, WCCTM 2S 109AC, Tax, Lot 2100 and 2S 109AD, Tax Lot 1'300;. and Remaining Portions of Summit Ridge Subdivision: WCTM 2S 109DA, Tax Lots 8500, 8600, 8700, 8800, 9400, 9500, 9600, 9700, 9800, 99001 '10000, 10100, 10200, 10300, 11500, 11600, 11700, 1 1800, 11900, 12000, 12100,' 12200, 12300; 12400; 12500, 12600, 12700, 12800, 12900, 13000, 13400 and 13500, and WCTM 2S 109DB, Tax' Lots 1000, 1900, 2100, 2200,.23.00,_'2400, 25001 26001 2700, 2800, 2900, 3000,, 3100, 3200" 3300, 3400, 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900 and 4000. ZONING OF ALL,. PARCELS: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning 4 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. r COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 13, 2005' page'S APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards foe annexations are set out in Community Development Code Chapters - 18.320 and 18:390; Comprehensive Plan 'Policies 2 and. 10; ORS Chapter 222; and-Metro Code Chapter 3.09. a. Summation by Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion c. Council Consideration: Ordinance No.-05 - 09. (Mountain Estates Subdivision Annexation) Ordinance No. 05 - 10 (Arlington Heights 3 Subdivision Annexation) Ordinance No. 05 - 1 t (Wilson Ridge Subdivision Annexation) Ordinance No. 05 - 12 (Alberta Rider SchoWSummit Ridge Annexation) Councilor: 1 move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance, as amended, approving the (say only one from list &low - again, this will need 4 separate actions): 1. Mountain View Estates Annexation- Ordinance No. 05-09 2. Arlington Heights-3 Annexation -Ordinance No. 05-10 3. Wilson Ridge Annexation'-- Ordinance No.'05-11 4. Alberta Rider.Elementary School-Summit Ridge Annexation - Ordinance No. 05-12 Councilor:..` I second the motion. Mayor.; Will the City Recorder please, read the'number and title of the Ordinance.. " City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) (Ordinance titles are, listed below) Mayor: Is there' any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council.. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: Ordinance -No. 05-_ (is. approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes , = fail 4 Ordinance No. 05 - 09 (Mountain' Estates Subdivision Annexation) An Ordinance Annexing 6.94 acres, approving Mountain View Estates Annexation (ZCA 2004-00004), and withdrawing property from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1', and the Washington County Vector Control District;. COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 13,200S page 6 Ordinance No. 05- 1.0 (Arlington Heights 3 Subdivision Annexation) An Ordinance Annexing 16.97 acres, approving Arlington Heights 3 Annexation (ZCA 2005-00001), and withdrawing property from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance..' District,, Washington County Street Lighting District #1-, and. the Washington County Vector Control District Ordinance'No. 05= 11 (Wilson Ridge Subdivision Annexation) . An Ordinance Annexing 2.68 acres, approving Wilson Ridge Annexation (ZCA 2005- 00002), andwithdrawing property from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District11, and the Washington County Vector Control District Ordinance No. 05- 12 (Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge Annexation) An Ordinance-Annexing 20.75 acres, approving Alberta Rider Elementary School/Summit Ridge Annexation (ZCA 2005-00003), and withdrawing property from the Tigard Water. District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County.Urban Roads Maintenance District; Washington County Street Lighting District #1 ; and the Washington County Vector Control D'istrict'' Community Development Staff to: read the description of, the hearing: 8:25 PM 7. PUBLIC HEARING '(QUASh]UDICIAL) TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS TO GRANT A BALLOT'MEASURE '37 WAIVER OF THE R-25 ZONING RESTRICTIONS FOR A PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF ' SW SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD AND 135TH 'AVENUE: CLAIM: t The Claimant seeks a waiver and/or change in the underlying zoning and comprehensive plan designation on al 0.45 acre site from the present high-density R- 25 residential zoning to C-C. or C-G. commercial zoning to allow a commercial shopping center, various tenants/uses, as well as "retail sales, vehicle fuel sales and signage of the, C-C. or C-G commercial - zone. The amount claimed as compensation without such waiver or change is $4,562,360.00. AFFECTED REGULATION: Residential , R-25 ~ zoning; ' -Comprehensive ..Plan designation as residential; Transportation 'System Plan and Development Code access restrictions; any other zoning•and building code restrictions or overlay zones that preclude a commercial use; sign code restrictions. COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 13,.2005 page 7 LOCATION: Lot 63,, Hawk's Beard Townhomes; WCTM 1 S 133AC,. Tax Lot 14500. On the south side of SW Scholls Ferry Road,' between SW 130`h and 1351h Avenue. ZONING. DESIGNATION: R-25: Medium High-Density Residential District. The. R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single-family . and. multi-family 'housing units at a minimum lot size of 1;480 square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses are permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally.. . APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 1.20.. a. Mayor Dirksen: Open Public Hearing b. City -Attorney: Rules of Procedure c. Declarations or Challenges f - Do any members of Council wish. to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? ` - Have'all members familiarized themselves. with the application? Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there . a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? d. , Staff Report: Community Development Department e. Public Testimony Note: Charles T. Wilson, testimony received, which will be entered into the record. - Proponents _ Opponents Rebuttal Note; City. Attorney..advises that because the Council does not need to continue the hearing or provide for additional time for written post-hearing submissions (although it could do so - if it.wished), the Council should consider allowing additional rebuttal at the end (i.e. opponents can rebut new evidence or arguments in the applicant's rebuttal, and the applicant can then further rebut.. The -applicant should. have the final rebuttal. -COUNCIL AGENDA -.SEPTEMBER 13,.2005 page 8 f. Staff Recommendation g. Council Discussion . h. Close Public Hearing i. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 05 - 13 Councilor., I move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance No. 05=13. Councilor.- I second the motion. ' Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the,number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) ORDINANCE NO. 05-13 - AN ORDINANCE, ADOPTING FINDINGS TO GRANT A BALLOT MEASURE 37 WAIVER OF THE R-25 ZONING RESTRICTIONS TO , BURTON GRABHORN FOR 10.5 ACRES AT THE INTERSECTION OF SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD AND 135TH AVENUE (LOT 63, ,HAWK'S BEARD TOWNHOMES, AND TAX LOT 14500, WC, TM 1 S 133AC) . TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL - SHOPPING .CENTER, VARIOUS TENANTS/USES, AS WELL AS RETAIL SALES, VEHICLE FUEL SALES AND.SIGNAGE OF THE C-G GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE SUBJECT TO APPLYING FOR AND RECEIVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL (M372005-00003) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion)., Will•• the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: Ordinance No. 05-13 (is approved or fails) by a (unaniinous'or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = fail 8:55 PM 8. CONSIDER APPOINTING CRAIG PROSSER AS TIGARD CITY MANAGER a. Staff Report: Administration Staff b. Public .Comment C. Council Discussion J d. Council Consideration: *Motion to appoint Craig. Prosser as Tigard City . Manager and authorize the Mayor to sign the corresponding employment agreement. Mayor Dirksen to administer oath of office to City Manager Craig Prosser.,. 9:05 PM COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 page 9 9.- LOCAL-CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) ITEM Removed from the August 9,. 2005 consent agenda for separate consideration - CONSIDER AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT- TO VENTURE PROPERTIES FOR WATERLINE CONSTRUCTION THROUGH SUMMIT RIDGE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT a. Staff Report: Public Works Staff b. Council Discussion c.. LCRB' Consideration: Motion to authorize reimbursement to Venture Properties for the construction of a. large diameter transmission .waterline through, the Summit' Ridge Subdivision development. . 9:15 . 10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 1-1. NON AGENDA ITEMS 12. 'EXECUTIVE SESSION.: The. Tigard City Council .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 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose'of taking any final action or making. any final decision. Executive Sessions are,closed to-the public. r • 9:30 PM 13. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn Council meeting. Announce: ` A CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AN URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY - , MEETING WILL FOLLOW THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING . .COUNCIL AGENDA= SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 page 10. City of Tigard,' Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter, of 'the Proposed Ordinance(s) . os. 13 STATE.OF OREGON ) . County, of Washington, ) ss: City' of Tigard : 14 9 tieing first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose' and say: That.I posted in the followingg~ public and cons icuous' places, a, copy of CS-A t»•tO OS•t Ordinance Number(s) Ox, ~ ~ f402? 13 , which were adopted at the City Council meeting of • os , with. a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto atta ed d by reference made a part hereof, on the day, of 20PS-. 1. Tigard City. Hall; 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon • '2: Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon • \ Signature of-Person who Performed osting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this th day of ZOG& h 20 Dom". OFFICIAL SEAL : - Signature of Notary Public for Oregon GREER A GASTON NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 373020 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT. 10, 2007 \\TIG333\USR\DEPTSWDM\GREER\F6RMS\AFFIDAVITSVIFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - ORDINANCE.DOC y , , ~d, . on , city. of preg davit of . Po dng s TY,OfTIGA" ' CI OREGON. s 05-01 through 05-16 Ce Matter of the Proposed Ordin'an In the • O/C OREGON STATE OF ash' g n ) . ss: ~n to Courip of W ) ,wed), by, of Tigard oiri (or City first duly sw eing ~ ~ b PLA ~CJ .r 1Q an say: , oath (or, affirmaion) > ublic place; a copy of: , following p 15; 2005, 1 posted inane` e adopted by the Clty Deceml?er , which, wer That 1 on - > nCe Numbers O rdina - and, Oregon Coun Tig 13125 S,w Hall Blvd P rmit Center, Tigard e , d POs who perfo Signature of...Person 14 day. of r e this . 5~,,,orn (or affirmedl' before m and S scbed > 20 eon oFFlcta- s'- re of Notary,' Public for Or g JILT. M BVARS Signatu . 0'T ARY PUSLON NO. A793 MISS : MY CpMMiSS10N EXPIRES JUNE 14.2 ? . OS ordinances 05-01 to 05-50., Pew ce,der.doc . l:admBreerVortns`e~avitsaftidavH of Poi , I r _ • . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 2005- AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 6.94' ACRES, APPROVING MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION (ZCA2004-00004AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON _COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAIN TENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY- STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR 'CONTROL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(B) and 222.170 to initiate an annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and written consent. from owners of more than half the land in the. territory proposed to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is' authorized by ORS. 222.12045) and 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District ' upon completion of the . annexation; and' WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on August 9, 2005 to consider-the annexation . of two (2) parcels 'of land, consisting of 6.94 acres grid withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced. Sheriffs . Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,' Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector 'Control District; and WHEREAS, the City Council left the record open. for written submissions for. an additional seven days after, the hearing on-August 9, 2005 and allowed a further seven days on August 23, 2005 for submission of responses to new evidence submitted during that time, as provided by ORS 197.763(6)(c); and WHEREAS, pursuant to. ORS 222.520(2) . the City is liable to, the Water District for certain debt obligations,. however, in.this instance the Water District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and' WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and, 222.524, notice was given. and the City held a public hearing on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of-the annexed property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced 'Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting-District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District by Ordinance; and ORDINANCE NO. 2065- _ ZCA2004-00004 Mt View Estates Annexation 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 current zoning district is R-7, an existing City zone that has been adopted by the " County and the:zoning after annexation would remain R-7 so that no 'zone change is necessary, and by annexation the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard goes into effect; and 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 the written materials submitted after the hearing and'determined.that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in thebest interest of the City of Tigard. . NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF-TIGARD ORDAINS.AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Council adopts' the staff report and- the document entitled "Supplemental Finding • Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222 as findings. hi addition,; Council adopts the document entitled "Findings in Response to Comments" as additional findings of fact. SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby arinbxes the parcels described in the attached Exhibit "A." and shown in Exhibit "B" and withdraws said parcels from-the Tigard Water District,, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be, effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the 1 .1 Mayor and posting by the City Recorder. t SECTION 4: City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation, includingfiling certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities. SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County-Urban: Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date. of the withdrawal of this property from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2006.. SECTION 7: In accordance withORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED:; By ' U.att l Ynau vote of allCoun61 im bers present after-being read by number and title only; this dav of~ 2005. . ORDINANCE NO. 2005- ZCA2004-00004 Mt View Estates Annexation Page 2 of 3 Nthy Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2005. • Craig Dir en, Mayor proved as to. form: ' City Attorney ~ - -Date ORDINANCE. NO.' 2005 ZCA2004-00004 Mt View Estates Annexation Page 3 of 3 i EXHIBIT A ',Mountain View Estates ZCA2004-00004 . Lega.1 D-esdiotio.' for; Annexation COMBINED TAX LOTS 2SIIOCB-00100 and 2S110CB-00500 Owners: Dwi9tit C. knthome and Karla Minthome (T L. 500) Owners: Richard'R'Wrighf.and Diane. M. Wright (T.L 100) A pact of land in Section 10, Township Z'South, Range 1 West of.the Willamette Meridian in Washington.County State ,.of Oregon and being more particularly described as follows: V Commencing' at the West quarter corner of Section 10, Township 2 South, Renge : ' . 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington, State of Oregon, seiid point-also being the Initial Point, thence, South 0"58'17"'E a distance of 333.50 feet along the South line of "Thomwood a recorded subdivision in Washington County Survey Records; -thence, South -03 ° 15100" East' a.distante of 175.10 feet along the West-line of that ,tract.of land described irj ' Document Number 99111751, Washington County Deed Records to the North line-of" Tiimagain Heights, a recorded subdivision in Washington County Survey- ; Records; thence, North 89°55'03' West a distance of 70.73 feet along the North line of said "Turnagain Heights" to the.Norb)west comer of said -subd- sion; thence; South" 03a3b'35"`East a distance of=d 07b.57 f ect aiong.te Wit line of . said -'°Tumagain ,Heights" to the North line of SM. Beef Bend Road; County,Road Number A=448; thence, along said North line, along a curve to the_lefk having a radius of 1467.06 feet through a•cential-angle-of 00"50'44r, the long chord- of. which•bears S 61"57'56"W a distance of 21.65 feet; thence, along said line, South 62°23'18" West 'a distance of 161.60.feet.along said North line; thence, . . along said North line, along o curve to the right-having a radius of:85800-feet- through•a central angle of 00°22'39 the long chord bears South 62°1159° West a distance of`5.65 feet to the West line of that tract of land described irr. Document Number 78044753, Washington County.Deed Records; thence, North" a distance of 629.34 feetalong said West line to the'Northeast comer of said tract of land; thence, West a distance of 171:29 feet along the North fine of said r tract of land to the East line of ftt tract of land described In Document Number 2004032242, Washington County Deed Records; thence,-North a distance of . 707.80 feet along the East line of said tract of land and the East line of 'Arlington Heights No. 2 a recorded subdivision.in Washington County Survey Records to the Initial Point.'. Contains 302,171 square feet, 6.94ages, more or less. , It, r, Sr' : n, 2S 1 10CB 2S -l 10CB it . • u • " '•'''.~'MS`\` it, ; ~ ';t• y:. •.yi: ..,P4•.Y' ''371',: ~ :•~•~t I: ~ /~v'• a41 \•rq m •.%r•' + +w• %.,r„~ „~...•s...,n jr u•`•'v •a'~r• ~'•s'... •,•Oy . ~ ;t • Y . n~'u 1 i+LS{4Mt•;• yt1'~ t Pit,. ~M,y~ '7ti' - ;I:y.~e,;,; MO Il r Itll 700 j .~n \ .3 I:. .ly;';1:;• ''1' '..'.'~;y /3~'y,'~,•'' ,~k* IAJAC atK - '3( ' r'•:: it ~.tyyr ,1~t,,(3•.`'•\~'~•},~,y',,' 3.~,Lr a!~ _ •:\',3•, I ~ i _ M '3',,.'f • t~ t• . ~ 1: L '1t,::' ;'t' i?' ; i~ ."1 n.f. u ,,'a. t,7,y;r 7"r•' ct t ilay,J. t II. I •r, - •v''• 'r '111/ :.`.A,''iti i ~}!S:'• . . , - ,a0,.~ . • .:x', • the ~ ~ . r•• 'a; :f,' • ~ f~Ir' Y~'(,,;. r'•t, ;It:t:~: . Jj~ 1-qp-• ~r•f.;fy;~yK%~ ` , p .:•`,'r 3•i :u ,itr•,;r: isrlSi 31!N::'n'y,~t,S' - 'Q r.R :i ii i•: , {{00 T y 1 _ i1 ';Sf '•!`ltld• lt'~ • • ' ri, Il:i 1, , , ' h ~rG' : • , ;oo uoo ~ ~ ~ r~ Mfr: ;\fr", _u 11N1r / 7MO ~t ;3 ' ; w,;. a; ~r.. \ t' nn f: ! + lswsra U} ~ - - :It?~:,,a; :~;n;';te`'•• ~,,\u, n i ' 700 if ~ - _ ~ .yt;+~ .,p:rr r.~i'r., Z` 'r,' 'a,..l:~•,' - •ii+• . v n ~~;w• ' , +t.,\•.; it:w~ :.Y ,I • Ol7 oo , 1M~ ,NV1IEw'14 01y00 S tloo Iwr,14n i,°P,°e ':1%'i:i~ i:; }:•.r ' WASHINGTON C OUNTY ORWGOA . w LnK +j; , NW714 tiW114 tiHOTlOb 10T28 R1W W.M ~,n,.`.,~ r °ntiS~, SrALX t• - fog' A 4144 X -1 fr,; . ' 4400 1440 , r -3x73 tua 4> i 1 M00 - c- ;r". .3k '1ti v it, It - :lt:'It:'ri';%;';+ h.~'f,":S iRALT yt 3-, `'C - L 'd''•Y ..(b~%It ::+f it HO t?pIVEe . t - 'f'~•th"% is }''n •'ra, t ;t R! ~~+:y.tr~,•u',.n ;•yy••.,, p 3• • 1~ ~.1 i1 • . 1;1,'r, ,113 :~„Y, •t, ti r 3 O :,.r; i;''}:,r;1 ~ 1 ao 1 - r"'• it ~f y':' :i '•r •t1 fOA AOD1190N.tL NAPi VISIT OUR WSASIT'S AT ,n;•: :N; . .ti%, • ;000 n 1 9 _ 'r:., '':i ,Y Q : Q i0 .11 ~ ~ _ •y'` Mldt/A0.M0/A61 M1Ol.3f1 ,,:,'•!i' IMO x,40 ~ i : Ola . s r'u; c+' ~,'',ft:•'` Too. `$toO .+.i % 7i_ F•• 30 ® 1'~5D ' ''3'' • .VY' r~'' ''~r,..','~~.' }aL~' ~ Q 4trY;r+;,;:'}:%ti It ~ig0§ ~ - - f~,~®~ ~i i~ •t rop'' •.ltr. .~i~•. ,t'ti.it. f~ ` 000' S }I ,ra ' . r • . 4' . r n; ' J.: • r„•'.f• a d ''ii ':r' :'r.~'.~`.• u: ,1 I it tar O V •,t• ~yy%..y 41 . - ~iy,ta 0 / . _ ~ / t f'/ ~ .6! gt r. r;:, r'. i• t: \r dF. 33..1{r;: sm..0$0 ® t t• r y {~pnn ;i a, u; a ~ ' uem p• / r t ~ u' oa •t v v I 4 p r t ltp ' Sua'" t, yew ; ll }t; uoa °u ~ 1:~t9 0~ ~ ` S . •i1 \I .';.;4 'r ,'3.~' J'~' ~'r, `ii 'a,. .at j ii~ J 01 s ® P A~ po ro ' r Nr~/~F~p ' P.-. :I; 1 ti )t'•' 1 K { 'pt• ® i oEe ~ • , ~~;i'r'4fii :'~•.:+QQ'+3}; `r~~; .t t: ;it t''r'';w''•,~: S 7400•.M P ®y ® •'~"SrN i : •a1i!~.'°0 M~: tin•'u 3'.•.S ::Sii, .ilir✓ .'n'.n ' •':'':i •'n; r;,,:..t'r,„;.;1 i 1j NM N6t n} f'.. •i1o * •re i'~./•0 •f ti;t: CaneaBeC Ta3dos For 191006 t;'}:" 9 a r i , inario~ i~r'Oi io~ Y\a'{i,•: r ul. }DO THIS ,n, ® ® 43 G ~a' I!P1 ,n •'.r,::;:. .i = V 1 t ; •r ,it.; iy ire 3 t'! Ll ib .1,, ;ti /oa 3100 rift jf .r.,Y`n ~0 ~a d1!~, rs~;o3 r 4n e1.4t u4 4 FOM r~;, ~ + •,:,;t, . 1u14,ma. cm, uuc :''}i';1:;' h,.' - :loo *ti• • 1 m I~14Na,rain,li,p auas N14° a''''' F •'~1.+,=` n0o J u s :~;''3' NN'8i,N i 1w4 ' 3100 Li141 It 'j'~• ••it, .i+.,.• ' 41' _ \ 01 •i IAq,,. yrp,.• •u; .1,• I 'R a Wa. WSA Ne,4 WI4 ill Q% NO4 -t 1 1, • I:r jim~~. ' , i'•1:!i - 3; 144010 + 1400 u 'n.' ~s}• '%','r: ^:y+lt+ti~~`i .y, lti i 0 1n 0 r:~ st ,:;d is 0 141 e n t ; a , s 1455000 CN,T QP nn ~rG : t ~1: ✓ n.a~ 'r':`%:'''r,'1~ ''y ,'.t N RIO , 0 1: u it -it x. ~ ''it; i i - a ';i PLOT DAM November 2Q, f003 Sa/K 4 / s _ sr, n'. ' ' i •'n•,, y FOONL E 6 es, 100 ,foe n; 08 "d°,° a p ♦ ;It;'j:,,'r,', ;;i''tt; n%'r};~:; P 1:, ; ; - .,t• { Q~ ;k;'',4;'}t; ;ii'•ri~~'%; :r?;,i ~ 'it, YqQ,Nd•A,•wdb,4•rnrW4d0a/l,m,.lgonld „°.°e rte' r*5R n1 GY' `.1,i:lt; 'AV, :i: ;-T ;ii;1 ;n, ,fir,'' ' .;1t1, ~tyt.;1 .';11.'; ';1:'';, ghv04,wnMluomYr dn10m1dar, xl mr meevcwanr`~i..Limamlue'..ru.e:~ ;ry`!,, d~ u YL ~r~'R::':•'ir,' ~y~t%, 3r:'u.•t ,y,1. LL~ r it . 1 'a: yi11 ~ ',r/~r•'',:',it; •r,''i:''•1+i:•:~7 i, ti, H ~•C: i d'i •.1i ..i ~ :4:dy\r. ~",y '•it ' it • o '+0: ti :•1/1[,04' ' , 1 IIN: ' \~1.~`,: : 't, . ':1;'' i'I:Y`: ` :i`..'' r: ' : K NO cI ' _ _ oe ~ ~nro\ ac19 ,Rr~ • `Rai - 0l00RAPH10 INFORMATION aYaTaY m' _~~M • 2 : ~'~'~ooo-: ~ - • , ~ igw• . • VICINITY . ZCAZ004.00004 MOUNTAIN MEW R aS,r~,` a, 1 ESTATES SUBDIVIS10V ANNEXATION - _ i ~•s •t}. t4 a .y ti . WASHINaGN COY Tlpard Ares mop 0 100 200 900 400 Foot 712 Got Ciry' :angitrd l altalbll On Oda map is (wponaral Ixallon ordy and should be verl0ad Ydth the OavaGpmerd ilsftes Ohtslor - 10125 8W HAR Blvd Tlaard,OR 01220 (603) $394171 + Attachment to Ordinance No. 2005-09 See Section 1 ATTACHMENT 3 Agenda Item: Nearing Date: August 9.2005 7:30 PM, i;~ C:\ t...,- • . aw,r, ^ i...v (!rte ,ter,.,,[ r .5:. F r.,." ,r,,.~ •CL:reKL'' f!''~ y.~".:~;.::c. wL,Y1• !.`•!•'.br{:;`jk:j•:l.;;l..+ • eat - !~f~"'?.4•-.• r• _ w' r :x'r•:,;• y r • T~. "1'x`"'p~ .s i•'+ ~~•~*.'`,Y• .aaTr~.. c ' • ;.a -t. ''r a .ya 3Ff~ r~'2. r ;6~ r ".t4 . t . ~~~S ~t~•r•`'`L1;;.' ~ r°S- i. t'.:`.rr': r'"PY-",';.. r'. ..'ji~j[. "[b'.i r y`~'~••r~'.~,f s tit 4!•~.. ~~~`Fl'' M',''~;~bt' i, Y •7 •x . :~r,+rv .~•];.~:r.:;r~ . ~F 6ARb [ ' 3 i`~7 y4~ •'`•'~M.:..4•ti LP G' M .t• ~='•yu ~ S i. : ~ :{,yt"r,,~ ; %T~• 43 ~J i : W'o'w 1 a :.O w+i t Ti: 's~ V~-~•' S y.~~ ejN••yYC~' • ~ . 4l s t'4•s~ %74^i: a.`.. K' r,: N . '.S v.! e•• n •F` ~q-fi A ;•'fi't~'A f.-'~~:~n i? ~ 1't!ii i4 4 fir. -3.9~ ~y,i~ •s;ti.'S; y~ ..7'.i'•.-0.1;."•' a1 ..•d> • P •6"~. 3~t(n~•j;.Yo- r!C t .d a;.r • 't.: C;;'S}°. ! - p s 1 •Fr V. s1• i!~4:r•"R' ~ ..A' r::! ~~•..-r,.~A ~ y • • c•.. ..p.P aew~l^ rj:a •i •~;p~ v6Y~.r: % t r A. ~ ..s+~ •S'LG ~i:. •fj~ R .,~R ij~e { N •Sr•. 't i r, 4~ < y _ Z:}• • :Cs :+a . r d tfi.•.('✓.'v xl, 7 _ t:'tii< •'w.Y' : w.. 't :s L"•f..r• :~!:S'n:.•... +•.K •(b ; tY"~L'124x• Ts . SECTION L APPLICATION SUMMARY. FILE NAME:' MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION CASE NO.:. Zane Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2004-00004 AGENT:' Lan Pacific APPLICANT: Sean Foushee Attn: Brian Keefer Accent Homes . 1001 SE Water Ave_, #360 12583 SW Autumnview St. Portland, OR 97214 Tigard, OR 97223 OWNERS: Dwight C. and Karla Minthome Richard and Diane M.-Wrigl# 12415 $W Beef Bend Road •15350 SW Beef Berid Rd Tigard, OR 37224 Tigard; OR 97224 PROPOSAL: The applicant applied for approval to subdivide property on Beef Bend - Road,' known as Mountain View Estates. The subdivisionfs.approval included a condition of approval requiring annexation.. The applicant has applied for annexation. of 6.94 acres. CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: 'R-7, Medium Density Residential. EQUIVALENT CITY.. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7, Medium Density Residential. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes With or without accessorr residential units, at A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplyy ekes, at a minimum lot size of 10;000 square -feet Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outrirgght Some civic and • institutional uses are. also' permitted conditionally. LOCATION 12415, SW Beef Bend Road, WCTM 2S110CB, Tax.Lot'500. No Site Address, WCTM 2S110CB, Tax Lot 1.00. .APPLICABLE REVIEW Community Development,Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390; CRITERIA: Comprehensive • Plan Policies .2 and 10; . Metro Code Chapter 3:09; and OFFS, Chapter 222.. STAFF REPORT?OTHE CRYCQUNCIL . anr~c + ~+r c SECTION I.L. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ' • .y yy:• r1 ,S•}' r.r~ t. • "h,^Jf p'LS~• aT: j •CU:"''-. rya. Fy+.r . K, •°!+:d7G..- .+iF p,F.','~" i .i.. 4, G 71=i%h'•+ i~:.' •.,ryi3'"''' . ~ Yom.. . J ;W'R` .Tl• C7 'j~3G~'a.::j ji•.':. { ~.•`'.:.n ~ `d• :.h ....fir [~~,ry L "'J:!:.! yr' _ ,.~~y •+f- ~ ~w~~. RAT,{:.._<: ..X•. (11 .yN~BIG • .5' ~r .Y• 1 ( 4"' :.yF. ./Yr':•:' •,~,~~y,. :..M .,'~'Ai.134i 'C ( SECTION ill. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site'Information and Pro osal Descrition: n Pacific, 'representing Accent Homes applied for apptoval to subdivide property on Beef 'Bend Road., known as Mountain. View Estates. A condition -.of that subdivision approval required annexation prior to recording the final plat 'Accordingly, the, applicant applied for annexation 'of the two parcels that comprised the subdivision- The -total area . ' represented is 6.94 acres and, is contiguous to.the present city limits along the northern property boundary. ; Ycinify. lnformation: :The. su ject par s are located north of SW. Beef Bend.Road, south of Thomwood subdivision, and west of Tumagain Heights- SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The relevant cntena in this case are Tigard Compre ensure Plan Policies 2.1.1; 90_ 10.1.2, and; Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18:320.' Staff has, determined that the proposal is . consistent with the relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings:' Com• reh_ensive Plan Policy . eie City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided ari opportunity.to, be involved in all phases of the planning process. This Policy requires an' ongoing. citizen' involvement program. Interested parties and surrounding property. owners within 500 feet have been notified of -the' public gearing and. notice of the hearing has been published in a .newspaper of :general circulation. The site' has been posted since June 23, 2005. - There have been a number of opportunities for citizens to be involved in the decision making process, including the approval of the subdivision request'. Policy 1 b.1.1: 'The City shall-review each of . the following services as to adequate capacity, or such services to be made available; to serve the parcel if developed to the most intense use allowed; and will not significantly _ reduce the - level of-services available to developed and undeveloped land. within the City of Tigard. The services are: water, sewer, drainage, streets,, police, and fire protection.. This. policy requires adequate service capacity delivery to annexed parcels. T he C"r[y of Tigard Police- Engineering and Water Departments, NW Natural Gas, TuaWin Valley -ire and Rescue, have all reviewed the annexation request and have offered no objections. The. subject parcels are part. of a subdivision that was reviewed and approved based on the availability of public services. Services to the subject' parcels have been addressed and conditioned within the review of the Mountain View Estates subdivision approval.. This policy is satisfied. STAFF REPORTTO THE CITY COUNCIL ' FAGS 2 OF6 ZQA200¢00004-MOUNTAINVJEWE.STAT.EgANNFXATION nmmcalloit~ucnr+u..+ 7 If required. by an-adopted capital .improvements 'program ordinance;. the .applicant shall sign and' record. with Washington County a nonremonstrance agreement regarding the following: The formation of a. local improvement district,f L.I.D) for any of 'the following services that could be' provided through -such a district. The, extension or improvement of the following: water, sewer, drainaggeand streets. The formation :of a .special district for any of the above services or the inclusion of the property into a special service district for any of the above services. No Li.Us were . required. for the subject' parcels or subdivision approvals- . All'. public .infrastructure listed above have been conditioned to be constructed and the costs are to be -borne by the applicant The City shall provide urban services to areas within the Tigard urban planning area . or with the urban growth boundary upon annexation. The. City of Tigard has an urban'services agreement with Washington County for those areas within the City's urban,growth boundary".. This policy has, been complied with. Policy..10.1:2.approval of proposed annexations of land by the city -shall be based on. findings .with respect to the following.-the annexation -eliminates an existing '"pocket' or "island'.' of unincorporated, territory,' or the annexation will not create an irregular boundary That makes it difficult for the police in-an emergency-situatiori to determine . whether the parcel is within or outside the city; the police department has commented upon the annexation; the land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is contiguous to the city boundary; . the annexation can .be accommodated by -the services listed in 10.1-f(a). This Policy pertains to boundary' criteria for annexations. The proposed annexation will not -eliminate an existing "pocket" or island" of unincorporated territory; however the annexation will. also not create an irregular boundary:making it difficult for police to -determine whether a particular parcel is in or outside the city. The proposed annexation will, incorporate the entire subdivision boundary for Mountain View Estaes. The police department has commented on the propposed annexation request and did not voice any ob1ections: ' The land is within the Urban Services Area inside the Urba'Growth. Boundary and is bordered by the ,Pity limits on . the northern side. Services to the subject property are addressed above. This' policy is met.-. Community Development Code - Section 18320.020: This Section addresses 'approval standards for annexation proposals; -All services and facilities are-.available •to:.the area and -have sufficient capacity "to . provide service for the proposed annexation area; Adequate service ,(water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection) capacity is available to serve the annexed parcels. The City of Tigard Police, Engineering and Water . Departments, NW Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, have all reviewed the. annexation request and have offered. no ..objections- = Additionally, the adequacy and, availability, of services -was reviewed, as part of the Mountain View Estates subdivision approval- Therefore, this policy is satisfied. The. applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have -been satisfied. Applicable Comprehensive Plan policies have been addressedabove. Ordinance provisions were addressed during the individual, reviews of the Mountain ViewEstates subdivision-. This standard has been met STAFF REPORT TO THE crrY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF V ......Y ZCA2004-00004 -MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION Pining; Do one u- ucAmmm, Assignment of comprehensive, !an and zbnin desi nations. The comprehensive plan designation an e.zoning eslgna onp ace 'on the grope shall be the City's . zoning district which most closely implements the City's or Coun 's comprehensive plan map designation- • The .assignment -of these designa -ons 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 • trap 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' andforizoningg map designation other . than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request. for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has,:been approved The* subject property is in the Urban Service, Area and is zoned R-7 medium density residential; pursuant to the City of ligard's Urban Services lntergovemmental Agreemen- The R7 zoning designation is consistent with'the' original Washington Counts R-6 zonidesignation as shown in the table below. The .City's zoning was adopted by the County w99 the City's R-7-zoning district. Therefore; the property does not-need to be rezoned upon annexation, Accordingg to Section 18.320-020:9 the City's Comprehensive plan•and zoning designations occur automatically and concurrei* with the annexation. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the. conversion of the County's plan and ' zoning designations to City designations which are-mostsimiler. TABLE 320.1 QiNVEItSIQN TABLE. FURCUL''I'1' AND CITY I'Ii~1N Ai~D ZQNINC. DESIGNATIONS Z 'W"hingtou County Land Use Ci6 of Tigard'Zoning City of Tigard Districts/ P, Ian Designation }"lan llesignation R-5 Res- 5 vaits/acre R-4.5 SRR. 7,500 sq. P_ Low density 1-5 uniOricre R-6 Res..6 unity-Acre R-7 SRR 5,000 sq. & 'X4c& density 6-12 units/acre R-g Res. g units/acre R-12 Multi-family 12•units/acre Med. density 6-12 units/ac m. ' R-12;Res. 12 unitsfacre- R=12'Multi-family 12 uuits/acrc Med: drnshy 6-12 units/acre R-15 Res_ 15 units/acre. R-25 Multi-family 25,unitstacre Medium-High density, 13-25' uaitsfacre R-24 Res. 24-units/ac= R-25 Mutti-family. 25-unitsfacre Modium-High density 13-25 unitshtc:re ' Office Commercial -C-P Commercial Professional CP Comrne~r6al Professional ' NC Neighborhood Commercial'. CN Neighborhood Commercial. . Citi Neighborhood Commercial CBD.Commercial Business CBD Commercial' Business CBD Commercial Business District District District GC General Commercial CO General Commercial Cc General Comm&oial IND• Industrial I=L Light Industrial. Light, Wdustrialm STAFF REPORT TO T1iE CITY COUNCIL % 1 PAGE 4 OF 1i , 7C.A2004-(H1Of14 - MOI INTAIN VTFW F.STATFR ANNFUTION o/ernc or nruuc~nn,.. Metro Me Yo 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions,. in addition to the local and state review standards.. These, are addressed and satisfied as discussed below: Consistency with the directly applicable provisions -in' an urban service provider agreement or annexation "plan adopted. pursuant to ORS 195.065; The processing has been done. consistent with applicable Urban Service. Provider 'agreements. . Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other. than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a necessary -party; The pprecess required. by the Development Code and Comprehensive -Plan. is consistent•with the Urban Planning Agreement for annexations. Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or 'criteria for. boundary changes contained. in comprehensive land use plans and public facility;plans;." This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, this criterion is satisfied. Consistency with specific directlyy applicable standards or "criteria for boundary changes contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans; Because the Development Code has been amended to comply with applicable' Metro .functionall plan. requirements, by comp, ing with the. Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is consistent Sh the applicable Functional Plan and the Regional Framework pram Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly. .and economic provisions,of public'facilities and services; 'The proposed annexation will not inierfere: with the provision of public facilities or 'services . because it is adjacent to .existing city limits and services; and the delivery of those services . was anticipated as part of the urban services. agreement which is intended to promote the timely, orderly, and. economic delivery of public facilities and services- If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of 'territory l to Metro, a determination by Metro Council that the territory should. be : included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be the primary criterion for approval; The subject property'is already within the Metro boundaries. Consistency with other applicable criteria for the, boundary change. in question under state and local law. , Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ' PAGE 5 OF 6 2CA20044)0004 -MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION Am-A Pt nu in w=Ampin SECTION V. 'AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County Department.. Of 1a6d 'Use & Transportation, Velizon, Qwest Communications, Northwest Natural Gas, Beaverton.School -District #48, Comcast Cable Corporation,' 'Portland General Electric, '.Metro Area . Communications; ' . Cleanwater. Services, Metro Land Use & Planning, Tualatin Hills Park & Rec-District, Tualatin Valley Water District, Tualatin Valley. Fire & Rescue, and'Tigard/Tualatin School District,23Shave had the opportunity. to review-the proposal and have offered no objections. . ••~C s•LlF.i'h ::i; y^. •r;j~y~'~:.~} `~'tfi'~~~.}Y.Ar ~i-+ir• at,•. yfS r- ~~,~Y Y.'• ~~.•,y . Jul 28 2005 . organ ra - Associate Planner July -2005 7MPROVED BY: Richard ewe o T Planning- Manager. STAFF REPORTTO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 6 OF. S . ZCA200"=4- MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION • Pigins Pl im in rar-aan rn SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH ORS. CHAPTER 222 ZCA2004-00004 Mountain View Estates The City is proceeding with this annexation, without an election in the territory to be annexed under ORS 222.125. That statute provides: The legislative body of a city need not call or hold an election in the city or in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed or hold the hearing otherwise required under ORS 222.1.20 when all of the owners .of land in that territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors, if any, residing in the territory consent in writing to the annexation of the land in'the territory and file a statement of their consent with the legislative body. Upon receiving written consent to annexation by owners and electors under this section, the legislative body of the city, by resolution or ordinance, may set the final boundaries of the area to be annexed by a legal description and proclaim.the annexation. ; The Council finds: 1.. There,is one owner of the two properties that are in the territory proposed for annexation under ZCA2004-00004. The owner has consented in writing to annexation to the City of Tigard and those consents have been duly filed with the city. 2. According to County voter registration information; there are no current registered voters residing in the territory to be annexed under ZCA2004-'00004. The City had received signed consents to annexation to the City of Tigard from all four previous registered voters. 3. Because the City has written consent of all owners of land and there are no currently registered voters in the territory proposed to be annexed under ZCA2004-00004; the City may proceed with annexation of that territory without a • r vote in the territory to.be annexed, pursuant to ORS 222.125, because it has the ; consent of all owners and there are no electors. ' Revised Findings as Submitted to the Tigard City Council from the City Attorney on September 13, 2005 FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO COQ At the August 9, 2005, the City Council received testimony from various persons regarding four proposed annexations., The Council 'allowed all parties until August 16 to submit additional written information: This document-sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. The Council received a request to reopen the record to allow, a response to the post-hearing written submissions and allowed, until August 30 for persons to raise new issues relating to the new testimony, as provided by. ORS 197.763(6)(c)-and 197.763(7). This'document sets outthe,City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by,the testimony and written submissions. L After the Council'allowed additional time to raise new issues, in response to new evidence submitted in the post-hearing written submissions, the City received two submissions, both a-mails sent by Julie Russell. Neither of those submissions raises new issues because all issues presented in her a-mails had been raised previously. Furthermore, neither of the submissions addresses new evidence submitted after the close of the oral hearing, but simply contain further argument on the same factual and legal issue's she and other opponents had raised in her earlier submissions. Therefore, neither are proper submissions under ORS 197:763(6)(c) and 197.763(7). Issues Raised Rv More'Than One Person HB 2484 2. Some people testified that House Bill 2484 (which has been enacted into law) either prevents the City from approving these annexations or demonstrates a legislative intent that a vote is required in any area to be annexed: House Bill 2484 is straightforward, It- amends ORS 195.215, to make it clear that "annexation plans" under ORS Chapter 195 must be approved both.by a majority of voters in the territory to be annexed.and by a majority within the City. A. HB 2484 does not apply to the annexations being considered by the City because HB.2484 applies only-#o annexation plans under ORS-Chapter 195, and the annexations before the City do not involve annexation plans or ORS Chapter 195. They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222, in particular ORS 222:125. , HB -2484, even if it-were effective, would not apply to or affect these annexations, B. HB 2484 requires.a separate vote in the area to be annexed for annexation plan annexations. However, requiring a vote in the area to be annexed would be a meaningless and futile act for areas in which there are no registered voters. There are no registered voters in the area to be annexed in Mountain View Estates , annexation (4CA2004-00003) or in the Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge annexation area (41PA2005.00003). All of the registered- voters in the Arlington Heights 3 (ZCA20005-00001) and Wilson Ridge (ZCA 2005-00002) annexation have consented to annexation. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS'. Pagel. HB 2722 3.. BB 2722 (which has been enacted into law) withdraws the right of cities to veto formation of new cities within three miles of their borders. Some opponents of annexation have argued that the intent. of this bill is that the wishes of citizens in the affected.areas are respected: _ A. HB 2722 does not. apply to annexations. B. The affected areas are the areas to be annexed. Two.types of persons have, interests in the affected areas - those who own property and those who reside there. All owners of all properties to be annexed, and all voters in areas to be annexed have consented to the annexation. , No owner or resident in the areas. to ' . be annexed has indicated that they do not wish annexation. SB 877 4. SB 877 (which has been enacted into law) has three major effects. One is that it limits the ability "of the City of Beaverton to annex "islands" of territory surrounded bythat City. The second effect is that it requires a majority vote in the territory to be annexed by means of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195. The third effect is to prohibit the . annexation of certain types of industrial property without the; consent of the owner., A. The provisions affecting only the City of Beaverton do not.apply to .the City of Tigard.. B. None. of the proposed annexations are "island" annexations, although an "island" is created by the Alberta Rider SchoollSummit Ridge annexation. C. The annexations are not annexation plan annexations ahd,are not subject to ORS Chapter 195. D.' The annexations are not of industrial' land and are not the type of land that cannot . be annexed without the consent of the owner. The City has the consent of allowners of all land being annexed. Voluntary or Coerced Consents 5.. Some persons argued that the consents are.not valid because they were coerced. . A. None of the people who provided consents. stated they were coerced. Those who testified that the consents were coerced did not specify which persons were coerced: Several persons.representing property owners (Tom Weber, John Marquart, Sean Foushee, and Al Jeck) testified orally; and/or in writing that consents were voluntary and not coerced. The City Council finds that there is no evidence that any specific individual was coerced into consenting to annexation. . CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 2. If any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is. likely,that the person would have appeared at the hearing. The Council finds.the testimony of Tom Weber, JohriMarquart, Sean.Foushee and Al.Jeck to be more, persuasive than the evidence of those.. claiming 'coercion because the named individuals were in a position to. know whether the consents were voluntary or coerced and those who. claimed that the consents were coerced did not have personal.knowledge regarding the.consents. The Council concludes that none of the consents were coerced. B. ORS 222.115 specifically authorizes contracts between a city and a landowner relating to the extraterritorial provision of service•in which the landowner consents to annexation. The fact that the City requires a consent to annexation in' return for a contract for the extraterritorial provision. of service is explicitly authorized by statute and does not constitute coercion. The City provides planning and building inspection services.extraterritorially and may require consents to annexation-in order to provide those services. C.. ORS 222.175 recognizes that cities may solicif consentsao annexation: The fact that a City seeks consents does not mean that they ,were coerced and does not invalidate the consents. Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use Proceedina 6. Some,opponents argued that some of the consents were required in connection with land. use•proceedings, and the City cannot require consents to annexation in order to process a " . land use application or as a condition of a land.use approval. A. For consents that were provided in connection with a land use approval, the time to challenge the City's authority to impose the consents was during the land use process. ; In all but one of the, cases, the land use process has been completed and • the appeal period has passed. The requirement to,provide a consent to annexation can no longer be challenged in those cases: R. None of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use. Proceedings have in any way challenged the consents or the requirement to. provide the consents. To the contrary; some of them have expressly testified that they affirmatively desire that their properties be annexed to the City of Tigard. The`applicantfor the one land use process that has not been,completed (Arlington Heights 3) has testified that the consent to annex that territory was voluntarily provided, and the City Council finds that the consent in that case was voluntary. General Concem For The Bull Mountain Area 7. Some opponents stated concerns related to the Bull Mountain area in`general and to their property in unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain. Some of them argued that the . proposed annexations should not proceed because of the negative vote when the Bull CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS-- ANNEXATIONS Page 3 M Mountain Annexation Plan was presented Ito the voters in the. area to be annexed. A. The rights and interests of the owners and registered voters in the areas proposed for annexation are recognized by statute. The statutes`do not create,a legally protected interest for other persons. B. These annexations are different from :the annexation plan presented to the voters. These annexations are property-specific annexations under ORS Chapter 222. The City and the annexation applicants are not requesting approval of an annexation plan. The rejection of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195 does not prevent later annexation of specific territory under a 'different annexation statute. "Double Majority" Vote 8. Some opponents of the annexation argued that a "double majority" vote (a separately tabulated vote in the City and in the area to be annexed) is required., ' A. A "double majority" vote is or.will be requirred for annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195. However, for annexations under ORS Chapter 222, votes in the City are not required unless required by City charter or ordinance, and votes in the area to be annexed are not required if certain criteria'are met. A vote in the area to be annexed is not required if alLof the owners of all.of the land and a majority of the electors in the area to be annexed, if any,, consent to the annexation. ORS '222.125. The City:Charter"and Code do not require a vote within the City., B:_ As to each of the annexations, the City has received the consents of all of the owners of all of the land. The City has, also received the consents of 611 of the registered voters in each area that has registered voters. These annexations are not annexation plan annexations under ORS 195, so the double majority requirement does not apply. The City is not required to hold a vote in any of the territories to be annexed, either because there are no electors in the areas to be annexed or because the City has the consent of a majority of the electors in those areas. "Islands" Of Unincorporated Areas Surrounded By The C 9_1 . Some opponents argued that these annexations create islands ofunincorporated areas surrounded by the City. They also note that the City may later annex those islands without consent of owners or electors.. A. There is no legal prohibition on the creation of islands. The City must consider annexation applications that create islands under applicable standards. While the. Council must consider whether. the borders created by-an annexation are so irregular as to potentially cause problems with the provision of police'services; CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 4 the police department accepts these boundaries as being acceptable and ,not' . causing confusion for the provision ofpolice: services.. The police department has provided written statements that they,can provide services. The Council finds that the boundaries are not irregular to the'extent they create confusion in the provision of police services. B. The City does have the authority to annex,islands; but is aware that the statutory authority to annex islands may be withdrawn, as it has been withdrawn-from one other city and from certain types of land. The possibility of a fixture annexation proceeding is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding whether to approve these annexations. ' Regular Boundaries 10. Several persons commented that the annexations' will not result in a regular boundary. A. The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plat Policy 10.1.2, which provides; Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City: shall be based on findings : ' with respect to the following; a. - The annexation eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island, of unincorporated territoryor b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City; ' . C. The police department has commented on the annexation; d. The land is Iodated within the Tigard.Urban Planning Area and is contiguous to the City boundary; ` e. The annexation can be accommodated by. the services listed in 10.1.1(a). t B. Policy 10.1.2 is complied with if either (1) subsection a or (2) subsections b* through a are met. ` These annexations comply with subsections b through e. The annexation boundary will not make it difficult for the police in emergency : situations to determine whether the parcel is within or without the City. The police department, has commented on the annexation and stated that it is capable of providing service. All areas, proposed for, annexation are within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and are contiguous to the City. The services listed in. 50.1.1(a) (water,. sewer, drainage, streets, police and fire protection) can be - provided to the areas to' be annexed'- the City and other responsible service providers have capacity to provide service to the areas to be annexed. The CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS-- ANNEXATIONS Page 5 n Council finds that the annexations provide fora reasonable extension of the City',s boundaries. _ Individual Comments - Testimony at Hearing _ Les and Ellen Godowski 11. The Godowskis argued-that the annexations will also prevent certain areas from creating their own cities or annexing to King City. -A. The City has-no obligation to refrain from annexing territory based on the possibility that some-other city may be incorporated in the area at some point in , the fiiture. All,applicable plans and intergovernmental agreements that address urbanization or the provision of urban services designate Tigard as the City that will annex and/or provide urban services to the areas being annexed. Charles Radley 12. Charles Radley argued that the annexations would violate Dolan v. City of Tigard and that there is no "essential nexus." Mr. Radley also provided a written document.. - A. Dolan v. City of Tigard applies only to cases in which the City exacts property from a property owner at the time of a land use approval. Dolan does not: apply to annexations. B. To the extent the Mr. Radley is arguing that the* City could not require the property owners to consent to annexation as"a condition of land use approval, that.,. challenge'is too late. The land use approvals are final and cannot be collaterally. challenged. Furthermore, Mr. Radley.was not the applicant or a landowner in any of the land use cases and lacks standing to challenge conditions that have been accepted by the applicants. C. The "essential nexus" requirement is imposed on exactions by the Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. case: Like Dolan, the. case applies only to exactions at the time of land use approvals, not to annexations. To. the extent that Mr. Radley is challenging conditions of approval in the previous-land use cases, - that challenge is too late, and Mr.-R.adley lacks standing to make the challenge. . D... The document that Mr. Radley provided is an excerpt discussing the requirement, under Rhode Island, law, that a building official musf issue a building'penmit that ' meets the requirements of the building code... Rhode Island jaw concerning CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 6 building officials is not relevant to any issue regarding these annexations. If Mr. Radley is attempting to argue that the City cannot require a consent to annexation, any requirement regarding consents to annexations by.the. City, are imposed in the context of a land use proceeding. The City has more authority and more discretion in land use proceedings than in issuing building permits. Julie Russell .13. In addition to issues raised by others, Ms. Russell claimed that the map included with the notice of annexation was inaccurate. as to which areas. are included. within the City limits and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell argued that the City's.process violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1. and CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell stated . dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning.. A. The maps provided'with the notice were accurate. They showed the location of the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by a shaded yellow area. There is no requirement to provide a map with the notice of the annexation hearing. Even if there was some inaccuracy, the maps provided sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed and their relationship to the City. The City provided notice in compliance with all applicable requirements. In the event that some person may have failed to receive notice, failure of a person to receive notice does not invalidate the.notice, which was properly provided. - B. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2. 1.1 provides: "The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement prograin and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is not. an approval standard or criterion for an annexation application. The City's land use regulations have been acknowledged, and those regulations provide the process, including citizen involvement, for considering land use applications. That process includes notice and a hearing, and the City provided notice and a - hearing, as required by the CDC. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations" . demonstrates compliance,with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by the regulations. Citizens, including Ms. Russell, have had'the opportunity to be involved in process. The process of necessity works differently in a quasi judicial land use process than in a legislative. process. 4 18.320.020 provides:. C. CDC 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards. A. Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a Type N procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390 using standards of approval' contained in Subsection B2 below. B. Approval:Critem The decision to approve, approve-with CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 7 „ modification, or deny an application to annex property to the City shall be based on the following criteria: 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have:,. sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area, and 2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning, designations: The comprehensive plan designation- and the zoning designation' placed on the propertyshall 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 . . Y ' County's comprehensive plan map. and zoning designations to the City designations which are the most similar: A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or' ' zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation' has been approved. D. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion ons to City designations' of the County's' plan and zoning designati which are most similar. The City used a Type IV approval process. The City has capacity to-. provide all required services to the area to be annexed, and the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, including those in Chapter 10, have been satisfied... The properties being annexed already:have City comprehensive plan and zoning ' designations, that have been adopted and imposed by the County: Ms. Russell . specifically argued that the City lacks.parks capacity in the area." However, the. 'City has sufficient parks capacity throughout the City to provide service to its, residents, including residents in the areas being annexed. The services.listed in the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer, storm sewer, streets, police and fire , protection, are the essential services that must be available,. and those services will be available to the newly annexe&areas. Ms..Russell questioned the adequacy of the street system. The City Council funds that the street. system is' adequate to provide'service andwill remain adequate.. If the properties are not annexed, they could still be developed consistent with the County zoning,.which is the same as: " City zoning,'so whether the properties are annexed•or not does not affect the " impact on the street system. ' CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS --'ANNEXATIONS Page 8 D. The areas to be annexed all-have existing City zones that were established consistent with Table 320.1. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Community Development Code provisions. Scott Miller 14. In addition to issues addressed in the 'Issues Raised By More Than One Person". section.' of these findings, Mr. Miller stated a concem with an increase in. taxes. Mr. Miller also . argued that the consents received by the. City are not consents.- Mr. Miller does not own property being annexed: His property is outside the area A.- proposed, for annexation.', His taxes will not increase as a result of the annexation. The property owners in the area to be annexed have consented to the annexation. Whether taxes may increase is not an applicable standard. or criterion in deciding an annexation. B. For each of tle'annexations, the City has either the written consent of the property owners or a petition from the property owners to initiate the annexation. All are valid consents.. y Lisa Hamilton Treick . 15. In addition to issues'address in the "Issues Raised By More Tlian One Person" section of these findings, Ms. Hamilton Treik argued that Measure 37gives property owners rights: that are violated by these annexations. A..: . 'Ms. Hamilton Treik does not own property,that will be annexed by these annexations. All'owners of property being annexed have consented to these - annexations. The property owners or their representatives who testified expressly stated that they voluntarily consent to the annexations. One of them, Tom Weber, stated that he actively sought annexation to Tigard because of the value it brings to his property. Measure 37 is not an applicable standard 'or criterion for annexation. .16. Ms. Hamilton Treik also argued that'the City has no authority, to condition land use approvals or acceptance of land use.applications'on a consent to annexation. A. In addition to Findings 6, and 7, the various agreements with the County and other urban service providers, including the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement and Tigard Urban Service Agreement, anticipate that the City will provide planning services and will ultimately annex Tigard's urban service area., Requiring annexation is not inconsistent with those agreements. Urban Service Agreement Sectionl.D provides'that the City'shall endeavor to annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed for annexation: Requiring annexation consents effectuates this provision of the Urban Service Agreement. The Urban, Services Intergovernmental Agreement gives Tigard all land use decision-making authority over the area to .be annexed. , Land use authority . CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page9, includes the authority to Impose conditions. The City has the authority to impose a condition of approval requiring consent.to annexation when it.receives a land use application for a property outside the City: Individual, Comments - Poit-Nearing Written Submissions Julie Russell 17. Ms. Russell again discussed general. Opposition to annexation in the Bull Mountain area, IM 2484, SB 887, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1: Larid 10.1.2, and CDC 18.320.020. The above findings address those arguments:. 18. ' Ms. Russell also argues that the zoning, is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The areas have all been rezoned by the County, and the zoning being applied is the zoning required by CDC 18.320. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the written testimony of John Marquart, there is little or no practical difference between Washington County R-6 and Tigard R-7 zoning, as applied. . 19:` Ms. Russell argues that not everyone who was entitled to receive notice actually received notice. The City provided notice as required by- applicable, regulations. While it is possible that some persons did not receive notice, the City complies with the notice ,requirements: 20. Ms. Russell complains about possible effects on other service providers. The City has not received any negative comments from other service providers. All service providers . in the area have. agreed that the area; being annexed will be annexed to Tigard. Services will be provided as agreed to in the Urban Services Agreements entered into by the City and other service providers. 21. Ms. Russell argues that the annexation will interfere with the orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services. However, her argument appears to be that services can be provided without annexation. That does not mean that annexation will disrupt or interfere with service provision.. The agreements between the service providers will ensure orderly and economic provision of services. 22. 'Ms. Russell argues that the Alberta Rider. School. property should not be annexed. None of her arguments relate to any applicable standard or criterion. 23. 'Ms. Russell-opposes the Summit Ridge annexation as non-contiguous.. The Surumit Ridge area being annexed will be contiguous with the City on annexation. 24. Ms. Russell objects to the Annexation of Arlington Heights 3 on the grounds that the annexation will cause annexation to a homeowners association. -That argument does not " related to any applicable standard or criterion. 'Participation in a homeowner's association is a matter of contract between the parties and unrelated to a City's authority to annex. Ms Russell also argues that the.City cannot annex only part of a subdivision.' CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--.ANNEXATIONS Page 10 No applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation of part of a.subdivision.. Furthermore, Arlington Heights 3 is a separate subdivision from Arlington Heights 1 and •2. LaVelle and Marie Day . 25. The Days object to the annexation on the grounds that the annexation may, interfere with efforts to annex to King City or to create a new city., This argument does not relate,to any applicable criterion or standard. None of the Days' other arguments are based on applicable standards or criteria. Jackie and Gary Kislin ; " 26. The Kislings raise issues related to HB 2484 and BB 2722. Those bills are addressed in,' the above findings:` . Henry Kane 27. Mr. Kane makes arguments against is annexations. None of the annexations are 'island annexations. Lisa Hamilton-Treik and Torn Treik 28. Ms. Hamilton-Treik and, Mr: Treik oppose the process in which the hearings on four annexations were combined as causing hardship on those who wish to appeal. Even if the hearings, had not been combined, the hearings could have been, and most likely would have been held at the same-meeting. Therefore, the, appeals would have all been due at' the same.time.. Combining the hearings allowed people to state their objections a single time so as to avoid multiple repeated testimony. All persons were given a full-. opportunity.to address any issues related to any of the'four'annexations. 29. They also object to the boundaries as being irregular and question the voluntariness of the, consents. These issues are addressed above: 30. They also oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to Tigard's TIF accounts. That, is not'a relevant issue and does not relate to any applicable standard 'or criterion. Philip E. Decker 31. Mr. Decker opposes the annexations as not being contiguous. '.No property being annexed will be separated from the City by any intervening unincorporated territory: The annexations are of contiguous property. 32.. Mr. Decker argues that ORS 222.115 allows annexation contracts only'for contiguous . parcels. ORS 222.115 does not require that property be contiguous at the time an annexation contract is signed. One purpose of ORS 222.115 is to allow properties, that CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 11 " A are not contiguous to consent to annexation so that they can receive urban seivices- immediately and be annexed later when intervening properties annex.. The contiguity requirement applies only when the annexation becomes effective. 33. Mr. Decker argues that the areas being annexed are irregularly shaped. The shape of the area being annexed is not an issue: .34. Mr. Decker argues that previous annexations were improper. The previous annexations are final and have not been challenged. They cannot be collaterally attacked at this time. Continents In Support 35. After the hearing, the City received several written comments in support of the. proposed ''annexations, including statements from Sean Foushee, on behalf of the applicants for the mountain View Estates, from John Marquart on -behalf of the applicant for the Wilson Ridge annexation, and from Tom Weber, on behalf of the owners of the Arlington Heights 3 property, all of Whom stated that the annexation applications were voluntary. Mr. Marquart and Mr. Weber addressed, other issues, strongly supporting the annexations of their respective areas. G:lmunilTigardlrevisedannexationfmdings081705.doc % CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 12 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO, 2005- . AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 16.97 ACRES, APPROVING - ARLINGTION HEIGHTS 3 ANNEXATION (ZCA2005-00001), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE JIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON. COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, (WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN -ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #11 AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(B) and'222:170 to initiate'an annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and written: consent' from owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222:520 to withdraw properties ' which currently he within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, the Washington County'Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District.41, ,and the Washington County. Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City'Council held a public hearing on August 9, 200516 consider the annexation of three (3) parcels of land consisting, of 16.97 acres and withdrawal of said property from the. Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District; Washington County Urban Roads. Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, the City Council left the record open for written, submissions for an. additional seven days after the hearing on August 9, 2005 and allowed a further seven days on August 23, 2005 for submission of responses to new, evidence submitted during that time, as provided by ORS 197.763(6)(c); 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 t WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro.3.09, 'ORS 222:120 and -222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing-on the issue of.the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the Tigard Water District,. the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1; and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS; pursuant to ORS 222.524'' the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from . . the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's,, 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.2005- 1 u ZCA2005-00001 Arlington Heights 3 Annexation Pagel-of 3 4 WHEREAS, th67igard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed . to the City zoning most closely conforming to the County zoning; and WHEREAS, the current zoning district is R-7, an existing City zone that has been adopted by the County and the zoning after annexation would remain R-7 so that no zone'change is necessary, and by annexation the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard goes into effect; and 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'regulatin9 annexations;: and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and the,written materials submitted after the 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 OYTIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:' SECTION 1: The Council adopts the, staff report and ,the document entitled "Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222" as findings. In addition, Council adopts . the document.entitled "Findings in Response to Comments" as additional findings of fact. SECTION 2:• The Tigard City Council -hereby annexes the parcels described in the attached Exhibit "A", and shown in Exhibit "B" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, 'the Washington County Enhanced' Sheriffs Patrol District; Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #l, and the Washington County Vector Control District. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall.be effective 3,0 days'after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor acid posting by the City Recorder. SECTION 4: City staff. is directed to take all, necessary measures to implement the annexation, includingfiling certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as. required by law, and providing notice to utilities. SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County. Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Stmt Ligly ing• District #l, and the Washington County Vector Control District•shall be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465,: the effective .date of the withdrawal of this property from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2006. SECTION 7: In accordance with ORS 222.180,: the annexation shall- be effective upon filing with the Secretary bf State. ORDINANCE NO.-2005- j ZCA2005-00001 Arlington Heights 3 Annexation Page 2 of 3 , PASSED: By L) n an i M OU3vote of all Council members present after being read' by number and title only, this day of 2005. e ex-.z fu 'Caffiy',Wheatley; City Recorder APPROVED:- By Tigard City Council this /3 • " day of 2005. . Craig D ksen, Mayor App ved as to form: Attorney 13. Date 4 ORDINANCE NO.2005-_ ZCA2005-00001 Arlington Heiglbs 3 Annexation Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Arlington Heights 3 .:ZCA2005-0000 t : ` . A tract of land situated in the Section 9 & 10, Township 2 South Range 1 West Will, amette Meridian described as follows= Beginning at the southeast comer of Tract "C" of the subdivision plat of Arlington Heights No. 2 which is on the east line of Section 9; . thence S 01 ° 43' 36" -W,, along said. east line, a distance of 248.13 feet; thence S 88° 16' 24" E,'leaving said east line, a distance of 171.29 feet; thence S 01° 43"36' W a distance of 62934 feet to the north right of way of SW Beef Bend Road and a point oa a non-tangent curve to the-let thence along said cum to the:left with a radius of 858.00 feet, a central angle of 18° 45' .39" (a chord. which bears S 54° 22' 14" W,279.69 feet) and a length of 28Q.94 feet to -a point of tangency;, thence S 44° 59' 24" W, along said north right-of-way, a distance of 13.10 feet; thence N 01° 43' 36' E a distance of 217 45 fmt - thence N 88° 59' 02" W a: distance of 59122 feet to tine east line of Summit Ridge 'subdivision; theuoe N 02° 02'. 19" E a &stance of 109.42 feet; thence N 01° 28' WE a•distance of 17328, feet;. (hence N 02° 14' •47" E a distance of BCD feet; thence N 00n 00' 56' W a distance of ' 130.41 feet; thence N 01 54 35" E a distance of 3$9:30: feet;,'thence N 01° I l' 42" E a distance of 210-05 feet to the south line of Arlington Heights NO. 2; thence:along said south We-the following) courses; thence S 37° 29' 33" E a distance of 140.72 feet;' thence S 41'.09' 15" E a distance of 13427 feet; thence S 710 02' 09" fi a distance of . 10557• feet; thence N-84°. 57' 06" E & distance of 113.51 ket', thence S 81 ° 44' 42" E.a, distance of69.971eet; thence S 070 15' 19 E a distance of 73-53 feet; thence S 90° 04' 0.0". E distance of-1 80-00 feet to tike point of beginniug. ' = '.,J • ' i, r „n; 2S 1 09DA 2S 1 09DA ~ , ' :%:u,,:N , ~.Y~ •ti •..atl:, err; %ti. :'+:.L, ~ ~•~,:ti• ':f :K''~,•:~ '4 N'.t, ~ f ur,~ J ~ •.4 ,y~ V ~:t;' :r.:r'f~' :v: 't' ':r; ti • ; ~ ~ % iylt,r, 1, K • , r: ti , ;tr , ''t. a ? '4 • '''ir"h'. ' :t'; 'r: 1t' v,' ti' d7 ~ ..x,, ~ • ~ }"q .xr .A. r,, .x , . ;S : .,a i~ ;1 , J r1' ~.R .,t1; 'Y ,r, .rti M, K .t'• 'r, L'• r~ l1 'i, +4„+{ 5 . SW a\• lsl'' •`t ~ , ` ! : 1'.,• \ L ",i 'Il ;f: ! IS' r.' 9, , ''sir . • ~ 't m ✓'':r'`'li 'Kl••rli :1; ; :h, i r 'L j'. u~ K',•~~.~ 100 ~,y - J••.n• . ' rT'44k~. '/..n. rh' rL rW .'l, , r~r :J, ti, i j~'~, r~,,i (l;n; '`y ll ) ~r ~i~{~:~ i' ✓r~ 1100 ~ 17 tr r;✓':1;` ,li'p'\, ♦ . ~ ~ :,+1~+ '11r'N' ;fA 1; ' 7 a' N ~ H C. i!;v; ;t 'i'Slt i ti•r'•I' tl . :4 , . ',n' ,,''C ash; r„ . ~ ay! ~ ~ h' r' k• , • ' 1'' ~ 11 g ~ ~ ~1 'tr!'~` ; r' h X---- s N.~` %iPu'; %~y 41•, ' ~ i ' 71, •tr' r 100 1'• ,yl„P'1 r,. , • ii; J ti ,R Ii ri pe/ 1 pifY Y: ,.1 ' flan el rr ' ✓ ' ; ,'n ,l. t ✓ KK ~ ai • r h '7r~,,;• oq ~ 0 v ~ 11 r;Y 1 +t' ! 111' Tit ki r " 1i~ Iloo- n.:r' • a' a It, 1 ;007' A . 's n I~ln , N y t_ • 4. ,u: . i 100 1! 1g A 44e0 la U. 7;.! y;'~,,. n; ss C•.,, I' ,+x~ :1.~ttir" . ''c $7700 ' ISO 1109 . Doi ll ' ' , , 1, ,Jl; •'r; r:': 1 : f ,1 ,,+'Y'.f i f 11 r • 7ri : f •'sr . . HAZEIAREST. U tr•', yr~I Iw 4;•,v:srrr.'%'v';w('t:~'q~ „w 00 Iba :i } r,. ln: } ' .t } ~ w H6111 11 Il T~ lJ gUMM a ' ~ ..h; \.,11.,11; 5, lrry.J ru,r ,r'~ '~"w '1~wa~ "-$:,-.1 1700 Tao If00 1 4 1 'Y W. .„1 •rn . 1%.' ✓`r~11, ..I ~t. - ' 9;4 l~f. t'r!;, ; ;71 ` 71'~ 11.^~ M ~ 7~i . 1. 4y -.j/ 'uY ,~'u•,Nr'✓• 1h: NASHINGTON CQumrOmam fees 100 NV~ r'\sr' n, !t 7700 1000 1100. M b'1'V 8T► ~.7,:'i;\%'h 'r,"ss''• Nnik 631114 DICTION OY T'28 TW WAL -1 II00 a u U loe i K, r %k' v' e' soAtst'~foo . s;•;7C `7y d=;r; t{'; . TT 7119 st;:,: :•r r, ,L✓~; :•.l:u~,.t~,7i';'';f; yi +~:'.`+i~~\r, 1~ 9 . T~ Ttoo j ~/j Iwo /rue0 Iu u e ~ ;stak;:~y>tt,; j'•`':•: ti X:, - ,7,,:,; ;1,' . Y to il' w 71 'x: li :+1. ✓t r ;Y pvv ! + 1000 x..111 .r ;r SUMMIT RIDGE t STREET Tluerr • 'u ur':~51 ^ a \r;':l,; t y,u,,,t ;rt g, >.oo u,,,r, 4,✓ ~rf`' r, „I• L, t• IIOOt la ..t N'• IIaO „•~J,' ~ :St:~,~~L,:'. ~J•'1t + • ;t:, 1~ tr, f 1 1700+ 1100 ` :•f , N ;u, 'i: r fir, ti » 1 i u / .u •'u•; f'nkA • ,;n•; x ti' •I '1:; •':y x'~'•t •111:'1, ?+::x ' L;r\ • ;h, v Q,, V. Y, 'h: ~eo111~ 1100 r. r' 'n y: % ,r, r•w X. 1. 11 N a, rti• ~°LA '11' { j:,',;, Jt' ' ~I`✓. .•,;':rdr',ni,~;%rr.rh _ liao S•, ; 4 u .=r' u;•:+' FOR AODATONALM•'iYWTOU - - ;r, tT 1• v';1?;.i tr'''•1 i. % r, ASTFea1TdAT iwo Irw.eanega+01eA.Or / r r::u. y.✓ .r, L:,,+{ :'4 , ci D QQ - ' li • ',t, x 0o O . y! ? C Tow ' 2 V t': r e ! i r ram r+ C };''s: "v; ti• •w Arc %,+r%: !row "N. K ; C :K,. n; r; n } , sroo 1,; c; , 'ti'; :u 'i :'r4'i ✓ r ti %ti < law >.K L , `•,w'. ~t,~7 itY., fh 6ooq n { Y,'~..1'~n►;'' ,,u::h' t: # u5;✓ /r."~,r N. t~ u t, ,r•: ''>~~r. woo ;n,''.'r,v'•.tiy ;i{' ir Q Q 1C~''•' :u; 1(',v :i;' •r,:, l~° 31 t:'• rq:n :x%:~•''''t'•'. 0000 1t ~ '7l ~ ,i~>~A I,'~ r; ~ r :p4 4701 . '•:v.,' s tr '.~,✓,,i'ty . ,N K y ` t L+ : Y•, •:,rn; ;ri ; t; , v;' °i9 ' ~i as .Q ,15,'q,•'fl; tl; ;ti;{~~J•t'Y ~K•/,~: - 7TE0 tgi I X 't.. ' :ytii., .:t lri :r' ,7fsJ'u, .,A,7•.' ,r }i~ 1;,r4, u, •'t,•,uti - ~ gpp - n, li , r`•~4,L' ;,4R!' ~ ~ i:'Y•'~' - :r 'y W ' ~:u..i4 !'iinL L✓ifr.' rlrrnl a,i,?:• - ' ; i r; ,;r; ire ~ ; 'W' ;v; • °~~0 ~ 222 ~ L q' % if t''~ "fi :vr,'• r•, 4~0 r u, ;•~rj,, 1t,; ,•r O1n1a0gT/dOll Earl alalOh Igoe: ~ .h.. 1 C~••. - ; .,.•.uJ.rh.✓~:,~?;ti,:nf.~:: u 4~0 :00/14 .''fi `'~✓`r:: :u s;I;.,_ •ys ::tOtt~r.~,r °•713 \ - 'N;,1rij,: • f,.ti '',,;'thr~y,'I ;N w 440 Sir n ' ;.~'V.;u~r~••~• Kam'' An,a 1 ro t; . • r• ti - 'r '14.0 >4 ®a s IL(1 7t f 'r:•}t„` ; .0. ~':;t+, z:•: t': 4300 41T if~•:Ary'•,,.'\ . •J, ; ; N Poll lilit/T ' ?4-ti4'•.+-t ' •nt,+ ' =r +fa ✓ r 'T Q ' J(• C 9 O n - Ila L \ , f, r4,T'Ytit 17. 1 J'•. y• ~,r' u PLOT ggDATt:t Janu 20, 290s0t~ '1' t;, r; p,, ti ' % ;r: '%✓'n' • , a' ti 1 ~ 1' r Il aa° K t C ; It r: :n:!. PONLSy~spgp~/{~~p►lJT~ppF(~J O,N 'i r, ;e, 00 J' J!t'J''riir'''vtiu r v;'~+.• ,t;,,J~'' \ FOROTtl~74~i1 S~ ~1ti,,• :u~:'t::'~.r'w•v'r:' ~ n' u :r:'%. •'~''"'4 S': , 4': r ✓ ..u,,r ~f r; t ; n v. V ,y, tl;a`: Y U, ✓ 1' i\D'''~>t, ;w 1,M 'L,S . ;tr.~t ~t+'ti:'+ %'".,•r~•;n:,•l,:,y;r,r. '`:+:~~~,<'tt~h',ratist',i 7"Ws", ✓.';j.' ~+.I✓,. r ;Y' ,t s{,;',.rti 1ro.n.r~a•.hraer+ +wsr „ ti; •Y:~f'le~l„x , ,'a.t~ V '~Ir; y~ ~ + ~r'WM ~e~ar.f.W • } M • 4 ! % h; r• h u , 7!L`iC 'LIY .1 •x ~ ' d ♦ ; rt , xi x; r ' , , Y ' •..rr.,,a '+•t f ~ • yti ? %'•„n ' 1`' ;r,,rli ✓ t 1 "si';e• Yt;' i ,ss;r .,r. 4 rrrrwwtm«, •w+ ' n; 'n t, ;i ;1!'• ft ;x;1'11 •ti h, ;N;'R; !r;., , 'r it, LS .7t;,h1; :i,'P' t, A ,!w; u, a:' •~t3 •u• •\r'•* ' ,r' ; t r•' , n;`;n; n, 'ss; r. ,+f„r. .1 ti . _ ;,t1~ >'v.:Iti,%::,1•'::{ ✓,a : ; •4r ; }•..:•:.'r, t• ; ' f•:'', J': :':v ti /;~~•Y,' r ' - ;,:':•s~'Y~u:.r`~ ::iy!:y~`• ~ ,x •!t, ?i,' ,;,i , ;n :d,:'s•~;r,'`:ti;;r: s 'r'•:~ v, ,r. rn• i ;r: ti: n„%: h;,.r•.: ! 7t,;K,,,r, r' ;;I;;i .'t.'4~!~ 'r: n _ ~ : ;:.':K .n, :ter •i4 A: • ' I : ! ~ 'v,,,. ,u; ti, . • i% ✓ Ji' • ' y~ rti • 'x' •t: f}atu?!_. ';u ;';u;' t 'n, ;,'..+t v;tiu: :l1, ;n n: ':x..1':•'~:; t': tiv ✓.~'".y%' n; 'x;.,;ri T'' ' 'v' .ttr ,r tl : ~AJ : ft'*~i~~'':uYri:r :{4~''r - ~ i 'ri 1!'',•, ~ti , . r, :•::i .ti , k d: , . 1~• • ~ li << .r.C'. J. 'r, , 2S 09DA 2S1 09PA UWU UK. CITY of TIGARD ,~Ap V 050 ARA►NIO INf ORMAUCH OVST[M m VIC1NI " . MIAR -.ZCA2005-.0000.1 _ ARLI~NGTON•.HEIGHTS ANNEXATION L. LD DPt. • w 7. 4 Tgerd/WeT1oP. ' -Mw N . • • I 0 •100. 200 30a 400 poor _ - .fir rr~ir - • r 1'- 010 feet 7Rfofma9on an lhb mop Is for penerd IeeoUat =IV ux 4.Wdbe vai8od Wlh the Dwelopme0l 8eN1aN OMSIc PPM. OR 07343 (303) 8394171 • _ - - • . hBadMw.cel.Cuad.a••ae - • Attachment to Ordinance No. 2005-10 See Section 1 ATTACH M ENT A Agenda tt6m:. . Heating. Date:. Acrmtiist 9.2005 7:30 IRK SECTION i. - APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: -ARLINGTON'-HEIGHTS 3 ANNEXATION CASE NO.: Zone-Change Annexation (ZCA)- 2CA2005-0'0009 OWNERS: Matrix Development Corp: Richard ,And: Betty. Simerson . 12755 SW.69 Avenue, Ste #100'.:. 12455 SW beef Bend Rd Tigard,.OR.97223 Tigard, OR 91223'- Walling, Roger/Jacqueline 12475 SW Beef.13end:Road Tigard, OR 97224 ; PROPOSAL: .The applicant has applied for_annexatlon of 16.97 acres into the Ciity of Tigard. CURRENT. ZONING DESIGNATION: R 7, Medium Density Residential: EQUIVALENT C" ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7; Medium Density Residential The.R-7 zoning district is designed•to accommodate' attached single-family hones detached single-family . hones with or without accessor residential units, at a minimum lot size ` of 5,000. square feet, and . duplexes, at a minimum lot size Qf 101'000 square feet -Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright: Some .icivic and .institutional uses are.: also permitted core itionally. . LOCATION: WCTM.2S109DA Tax Lot 2100; and 2S1't0C13 Tax Lots 600 and 700_ APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community .Development Code Chapters . 18.320 and . 18:390; Comprehensive Plan Policies-2 and 10 Metro Code Chapter 3.09; and ORS Chapter 222. SECTION. 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION -SECTION Ill. BACKGROUND. INFORMATION " ' . = . Site Information and Pro `osal Description: e app scan owner,: Matrix Deve opment, has applied for, subdivision review, but that application -has not completed its review at -the time of this feport. The subdivision is: . tentatively named Arlington Heights 3..:A• standard condition of approval for. subdivision.::. proposals on property that borders City limits within the Urban Services lntergovemmenta! ' Agreement area is - that. the " property annex prior to final plat approval. There . is no requirement that an applicant or property owner wait until receiving land use approval to annex the propperty..A parcel that. is contiguous to the city limits may apply for annexation at any time. The total area represented in. this • annexation request is 16.97 acres and is contiguous to the present city limits along the westem property boundary. . Vicinitv Information e subject p~ arcels are located north of SW Beef Bend- Road, south of Arlington. Heights I -and 2, and'east of Summit Ridge subdivision. SECTION !V. APPLICABLE. REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigartt Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1,.1'0.1.1, 90.1.2; and; Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 15.320. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant 'policies of the Comprehensive plan based.on the following findings: Corn rehe'nsive Plan Policy The City shall maintain an ongoing `citizen' involvement program and shall assure that citizens. Will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning. process. This Policy requires an ongoina afizen involvement .program. -Interested parties and surrounding pproperty Owners within 5Q0 feet have been notified of the. public hearing and notice of the hearing bas been published irr a-newspaper of general circulation. The site has been posted since June 23, 2005. There have. been a. number of opportunities for c'itizen' to be involved in'the decision making process, including the approval of, the. subdivision request. Policy 10_1.1: The City: shall review each of the- following services as to adequate . capacity, or such services to be made available, to serve the parcel if developed to the most intense use allowed, and will not significantly reduce the level of services -available to.developed and undeveloped land within the City. of Tigard. The services; are: water, sewer, :drainage, streets', police, and fire protection.,, This* policy requires adequate service capacity deliverryy to. annexed parcels. The.City of Tigard Police, re and Water Departments ; NW Natural.Gas, Tualatin Valley. Fire and Rescue,, have all reviewed. the annexation request and have. offered no objections., While the subdivision . request has,'not completed its review, staff finds that there are three roads stubbed to the parcel, an 8° water line stubbed to the site an 8" CWS sewer line along the' east- boundarryy,, and drainage on the site is presently provided by. two natural drainageways. . Betbre the land is developed .'at its designated capacity. of 1 units to the -gross acre, the subdivision review. Will require -that • adequate facilities are available and upsized if necessary to handle the development By providing this infrastructure, the site will have adequate service capacity.. This policy is;satisfied..'' If required by an adopted" capital imorovements•:program ordinance, the applicant shall • sign and record with Washington County a nonremonstrance agreement regarding the following: The formation of a local improvement district (L.11M.) for any of the following services that could • be, provided through such a district: • The extension or improvement of the following: water, sewer3 drainsge-and'streets. The formation of a special district for : any of the • above services or the inclusion of the' •property.into a special service district for any of the above services. No Liffs'have been required with-the subject parcels or subdivision ajpprovaL _AII public infrastructure- listed above-will have-to be-.completed. before the land .is subdivided by a subdivision plat.:The,.eosts:of providing such services will :be borne by the applicant :Since (here are- no capital improvements identified-for this site, no nonremonstrance agreement is . necessary. The City shall provide urban services to areas Within .the Tigard.urban planning-area or with the urban growth boundary upon annexation. The -City of Tigard has .an urban services agreement. with Washington county- for those areas within the City's urban growth boundary. .This -policy has been complied with. Policy 90.1.2: approval of proposed annexations of land by the city shall .be'based'on findings with respect to the following: the anhexatiori eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated' territory; or the annexation. will not `create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an. emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within- or outside the. city; the police department has commented upon the annexation; the land is .located within the Tigard urban planning area and is contiguous to the cittyy. • boundary;, the annexation, can he accommodated by the services listed in 10.1:'f(a}. : This Policy pertains to boundary criteria for annexations.. The. roposed annexation will not eriminate an existing "pocket' or 'island" of -unincorporated terrtory; however the annexation will also not create an irregular boundary making it difficult for police to determine whether a.. Particular parcel is in or outside. the city. The proposed annexation- will incorporate the entire. subdivision boundary for Arlington Heights Phase.'3. ,All f iture.lots within this phase of the. • subdivision will be inside city limits. The police department has commented -on the proposed . annexation request, and did not voice any. objections. The land'.is within the Urban Services Area inside the Urban Growth Boundary and is bordered by the city limits on the northern side.. Services to the subject property are addressed above. This. policy is met. Comnlunity.Develo meet-Code , Section 1$:320;02 is • ection addresses approval : standards' for annexation ; proposals: -All services and. facilities are available to the area .and have sufficient capacity to . provide service for the proposed annexation area; . Adequate service (water, sewer, drainage, streets,. ponce, and fire protection) capacity, is • available to serve the annexed parcels. The City of Tigard Police; Engineering and. Water --Departments, NW - Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue,. have all reviewed the. annexation request and .'have offered.. no 'objections. Additionally, the adequacy .and availability Of services to serve the intended R-7 Medium Density residential- development will be reviewed and conditioned as necessary as part of the Arlington Heights 3 subdivision review. Therefore; this.policy is satisfied. The ,applicable comprehensive plan .policies and implementing" ordinance provisions have been satisfied. CYAFF Pr-onc r rn run errv rru retru Ap Iicable:Comprehensive Plan olicies"have been addressed above. The implementing . ordinance provisions of ORS 2. , TCDC 18.390, and. Metro Code • 3.09 were: followed in processing this annexation request Conformance with other development -code provisions ' mdII be addressed at the time the property develops. This standard has been met, ; Assi nment of comprehensive* lan and zonin desi nations. -The compreherisive' an' "19n9 on and - the zoning designation placed-on wprope shall be'the. City's rty zoning district which most closely implements the City's or Coun s comprehensive s -shall occur plan' map designation. The assignment . of these designa 'on automatically and concurrently with-the annexation. •In the case of land which-carries ' .County designations, .the ;City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan snap 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 andlorizonin rnap designation other. than the e~ciMing designations: {See Chapter 18.380}..: A request for a zone- change can be processed concurrently, with an annexationz application or after the annexation has been approved,: . The subject property is in the Urban Service Area and is.zoned R-7` medium density. residential, pursuant to the City of Tigard's Urban Services Inter ovemmental Agreement _ ning The R-7. zoning designation isconsistent with the original Washington- Count}~s R-. zo desiggnation as shown in the table below. The City's zoning was adopted bythe Counttyy with the City's R-7 zoning.distri ct when the Intergovemmental,Agreement•was signed befinreen the. county and the city to.provide city planning -services to this area. Therefore, the •Property does not need to be rezoned upon: annexation. According ;to Section 18.320:02UQ.the Cit~s Comprehensive, plan and 'zoning -designations occur automatically, and concurrently with the annexation. 'Conversion table. Table 320.1 'summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations toCity designations which are most similar. 4.^...•: 1-. _ - 'f~ L-- 7:~_Y, _.I K-...._ 'P_' :qty.. ri • i•{'=+'•?~,~.-x =.v!••. - C.' :',~rm~::~?~Lt.-r..i.;_ _ .i .5~~,•'3`r- ~Sti¢a~-~'s-';.i}.: }6'F.'`~-r'" '`=(~,~J:'='.+t'•: ' • '1 _~M•i _ t+•:}yS SR _ mtitr.:":j' -•c r.} s.»:~S :i~ :i• 2• c-' ~ r-. . •-.T~ + Lv,.............. •r rY t 1 ~ t µA. t ~`~'#`~rv":r`+.. «•7" ,L ~.,,,rs. ki w 7•~-`r'~v~i ~r:r.~ f~~c_i'. ' r? . ri_ • ' ~ `'"'?}J: ' rt.. _ i:~: "~"~s-1•'s'~- - v-: {ter; - . ' •F .i-. '•:x,.s.:. • b .'r' _r~ ~'v. • i\o~~.r ~7:J,• '!r•-.~.~-3~ ~ r .1 r...: _ ~~{e~~~ia f . ' :,•e ~.ss}~,i;-•:cia.__1 •.:~~5~"'-.`~. i_kcd' '.v rrt• :ri ,~;5. ::rc• c w}•r+:~-:3135_'-:~~ -'--'r~;,~ + ti_~,;~4{•%:?.ti.'~,`~~:~, _'i:'''~~L=...t-uK-:•.~:.` ~ ! iGll~V. rd.i.4.t ,.f.,ti+r i.ir..i... r•'t. ••m . '.A. ,.J .Se.'.. ~s~t.~eH1,•. ::w... w.3.,4:.',S• ..I...::,w7,.. +1-.:c.:.: ,7s~... t,.]'.~, r.w.!aCF... r ' :~':f.~-_ ° ~ r ' ~ :d~:a. •;,cr.'~:`. _ y,~ ~~`t::r tl .4 `,ir. ":rFr~6n•~r4 ~ dr.:.'' l~~'A~:•i}ti • ~ qtr 3c i.: RLiL•Ca~,t'Sa:•-li_+~1.[ r:1 "W .J:L°lt+-i+l"` S Sl~_:::'~ e T~ia~it . ~"rt• _ ^ ..a:._ •r _'~~:c:. i e~~t.• ~ -~`t~' isR'-:: ts'y.'~;~ r..- - ~ 4:•..~ s~ 1F RF{~ - •4:"J,.Im.,li.:,e>:?::. .::-7:wn..;-.:.. R ..:h•,c-. r.'.T~YG:w..w...it ~ rNS.t?:r.,.'.6:k-..... • ~,7i.:,l .Siii~.: . : S r _ 'z~i~-...ti9. ~1'-~:.~?!inMM ~l T~i• ' _ •.}~11r --i~ • :~iw. •`•iil ~ }h :YK+~i~: R'F4~~ ~ I'..f~•e-n•~ 1..~ ~1 •i 13, y:.~~ t ..r%n,~.f. ' ~Y . .•..••:L,1.~. +,1• f;,_.: ` _yl _y~;t'~?ti-c!;.'t.~'~.~+ ~a -r..:'_• i•. ~C'•-J' t' z J ~.f • -+n: r .•a i•~F~+ s. a _~Rivl -a•.-i~:'" ?.'msg.-: t i t • •'•r f :.,-`t;~7.•:' ~t - --'r'-nxi~-.+~._ ]~'_^t?~s._L.-,rt..:r_,: _s~'~=~~i ._.C,~' L;%:ji:: ~•~t:.,:v...:.1~.~:''iF' . _ yr'~:i~!r ''fz~..'•r-.t, ;_.;.:ra •s. "F.._;;:ti•- . t T ,t••.+"... ,,Try-'•.j_}-• ,tr ,-r• ~3:.; . rt.:.:,i":.i•..F=.«~.;•:.,~:... rs,.'"~,I~Wv....-..r•..t:'-:,b:r~.,:%:+a:~,::.+,.,::d`' =.r.,~',.;..::::.r.-ia:~s.<,..+.....uz., t~+•• yam; '!L•K r'' :.;'(A ..•ti?; 3 ZEE ~s`tf3„•,tti •y ' . . «~L1tbC+. •.'iTG'rer r,~ ♦e ny r -urj,•:x~•s,YF'£ii' J .~,s. . rrv - - . c'r~ Ge oGVnQT.TI'17rUC /`fTYY:rY lpC!(1' AECs A C1q R- . Metro Metro 3:09 =Cal the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions,1 in addition and state review standards. 'These are addressed and satisfied as. discussed below:'..'. ,Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in • an urban servilce` provider agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant to, URS 195.065; The' , processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban. 'Service Provider' agreements. Consistency With directly applicable provisions of urban, planning or other agreement, other than-agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 995.065, between the'affected entity party; and a necessary The -process required by the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Ahe Urban Planning Agreement for annexations. Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or. criteria for - boundary changes contained in comprehensive land use. plans and public facility plans; • This has been discussed. previously in this report and, as discussed, this criterion is satisfied. . Consistency with' specific directly applicable standards • or criteria . for boundary changes contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional: plans; Because the ,Development Code has -been amerided 'to"comply with applicable Metro functional plan requirements, by romping with ' the "Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is consistennt the applicable Function[ Plan; and the Regional Framework plan. . Whether the. proposed -changes wilt promowe or not interfere with the timely, orderly and'economic provisions of public facilities and,services; The proposed annexation will not interfere with the' provision of public facilities. or services because it is adjacent to existing city limits and services, and the. delivery of those services 'was antici ated as part of the, urban services agreement which . is intended to. promote the tirnely,.orderly, and economic delivery of those public facilities and services. If, the proposed boundary change is for annexation . of territory to- Metro, a determination by Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban • Growth Boundary shalt be the, primary criterion for approval; The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries. . Consistency with other applicable criteria for'the boundary change in question under state and local law. Consistency with other.applicable ciiteria7has been discussed. previously in this report. STAFF REPhRT To THE 6 f Y COUNCFL',• nw nc•r ~r e Cp'N1~►'E~TSnsport~°n '~'St ~ab1e " COMe p►~NG Use Sc lions, . ent .01 • Land ' hool Dis . #Ol1 Qepa Beave on GMr mun'~ . TuaXatiri Valley County amoral Gas, ea Metro have on west 11 aclc ~{oct ~3J . ,~jashi u~ications. N°~ GeneraC ~e~-7'ualahri Ni#1s P School D • Gomm Portland fanning= and TigarcilCuaia~n °ns' " or oration, Land Use & e & Rescue, . ered ect~ P AAetr° valley fir d have of ,PS Servi trict; Tualatin ev1ew tine proposal • water ID's rkunitjf to.r . had the 28 ~90 JO an . racy er A°0 cute Man n 2S 2005 . , ' , - - - ~ Manager.''. SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH ORS CHAPTER 222, ZCA2005-00001,=Arlington Heights 3 The City, is proceeding with this annexation without an election in the territory to be annexed under ORS 222.125.. -That statute,provides: 'The legislative body of a city need not call or hold an election in the city or in any. contiguous territory :proposed to'be annexed or hold the hearing, otherwise required under ORS 222:120 when all of the owners. of land in that territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors, if any, residing in the territory consent in writing to the annexation of the land in the territory and file a statement`of their consent with the legislative body: Upon receiving written consent to annexation by ; owners and electors under this section, the Legislative body.of the city, by resolution or ordinance, may set the final boundaries -of the area to -be annexed by a.legal description and proclaim-the annexation., The Council fords: 1.. There• are five owners of the three properties in the territory proposed for , annexation under ZCA2005-00001 have consented in writing to 'annexation to. the City of Tigard' and those consents have been duly filed with the City: 2. According to County voter registration information, there are four registered voters residing in the territoryto be. annexed .under ZCA2005-00001. The City . has received signed consents to annexation to the City of Tigard from all four registered voters. Therefore, the City has received consents from a majority of the electors in the territory. to be annexed under ZCA2005-00001: . Because the City has written consent of.all, owners of land and:the majority of the voters in toe territory proposed to be annexed, under ZCA2005-00001, the City.: - may proceed with annexation of that territory without a vote in the territory to be annexed; pursuant to ORS 222.125. Revised Findings as Submitted to the Tigard* City Council from the City Attorney on September 13, 2005 FINDINGS IN RESPON SB 'r U c:uwt;N i a At, the August 9, 2005, the City Council received testimony from various persons regarding four proposed annexations. The. Council allowed.all parties until August 16 to submit additional written information. This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. The Council received a request -to reopen the record to allow a response to the post-hearing written submissions and allowed .until August 30 for persons to raise new issues relating to the new testimony, as provided by ORS 197.763(6)(c) and 197.763(7). This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony and written; submissions. 1. After the Council allowed additional time to raise new issues in response to new evidence submitted in the post-hearing written submissions, the City"received two submissions, . both a-mails sent by Julie Russell. Neither of those submissions raises new issues . because all issues presented in her a-mails had been raised previously. Furthermore, : neither of the submissions addresses new evidence submitted after the close of.the oral . hearing, but simply contain further argument on the same factual and legal issues she and, oilier opponents had raised in her earlier submissions. Therefore, neither are proper r submissions'under ORS 197.763(6)(c) and 197.763(7), t • Issues Raised By More Than One Person FIB 2484 2. Some people testified.- that House. Bill - 2484 (which has been enacted into law) either prevents the City from approving these annexations. or demonstrates .a. legislative intent that a vote is required in any area to be annexed. House Bill 2484 is straightforward. It amends ORS195.215, to make it clear that "annexation plans' under ORS Chapter 195: must be approved both by a majority of voters in the territory to be annexed and by a majority within the City. A. HB 2484 does not apply to-the annexations being considered.by the City because „ . HB.2484 applies only to annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195, and the annexations before the City do not involve annexation plans or ORS Chapterr 195. They are annexations under ORS Chapter. 222, in particular ORS 222.125. HB 2484, even if it were effective, would not apply to 'or affect these annexations. B. BB 2484 requires a separate vote in the area to'be annexed for annexation plan annexations. However, requiring a vote in the area to be annexed would be a meaningless and futile act for areas in which there are no registered voters. There. are no registered voters in the area to be annexed in Mountain View Estates annexation (ZCA2004-00003) or in the Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge annexation area (ZCA2005-00003). All of the registered voters in the Arlington Heights 3. . (ZCA20005-00001) and' Wilson Ridge (ZCA 2005-00002) annexation have consented.to annexation.' . CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Pagel HB 2722 3. HB 2722 (which has been enacted into law) withdraws theright of cities-to veto formation of new cities within three miles of their borders. Some opponents of annexation.have argued that the intent of this bill is that the wishes of citizens in the, affected areas are respected. A'. HB 2722 does not apply to annexations. B. The affected. areas are the areas to be-annexed. Two types* of persons have interests in the affected areas - those who own property and those who reside there. All owners of all properties to be annexed, and all. voters in areas to be annexed have consented to the. annexation. No,owner or resident in the areas to be annexed has indicated that they do not Wish annexation. SB 877 4. SB.877. (which has been enacted into law) has three major effect's. One is that it limits the ability of the City of Beaverton to annex `Islands" of territory surrounded by, that .City. The second effect is that it requires a. majority vote in the territory, to be annexed by means of an annexation, plan under ORS Chapter 195. The third effect is to prohibit the annexation of certain types of industrial property without the consent of the owner. A. The provisions affecting only the City of Beaverton do not apply to the City of Tigard. B. None of the proposed annexations are. "island" annexations, although an "island" is created by the Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge 'annexation: C: The annexations are not annexation plan annexations and are not subject to ORS Chapter 195., D. The annexations are not of industrial land and are.not the type of land that cannot be annexed without the consent of the *owner. The City has the consent of all*. owners of all land being annexed: ; Voluntary or Coerced Consents 5. Some persons argued "that the consents. are not valid'because they were coerced. A.. None of the people who provided consents stated they. were coerced. Those who testified that the:consents were coerced did not specify which persons Were - coerced., Several persons representing property owners (Tom Weber, John ' . Marquart, Sean. Foushee, and Al Jeck) testified orally and/or in writing that consents were voluntary and not coerced. The City Council finds that-there is no . evidence that any specific individual was coerced into consenting to annexation. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 2 f If any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is likely that the person would have appeared at the hearing. The Council finds the testimony of Tom Weber, John Marquart, Sean Foushee and Al Jeck to be more persuasive than the evidence'of those claiming.coercion because the named. individuals were in a position to know whether the consents were voluntary or coerced and those who claimed that the consents were coerced did not have personal knowledge regarding the consents. The Council, concludes that none of. the consents were coerced. B. ORS 222.115 specifically authorizes contracts,between a-'city and a-landowner relating to the extraterritorial provision of service in which the landowner" consents to annexation. The fact that the City requires a consent to anmxation in return for a contract for the extraterritorial provision of service is.explicitly authorized by statute and does not constitute coercion. The City provides planning and building inspection services extraterritorially and may, require consents to annexation in order to' provide those services. C. , ORS 222.175 recognizes tliat cities may solicit consents to annexation. The fact that a City seeks consents does not mean that they were coerced and does not invalidate the consents. Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use Proceedina . 6. Some opponents argued that some of the consents were required in connection with land . . use proceedings, and the City cannot require consents to annexation in order to process a land use application or as a. condition of a land use approval. A. For consents that were provided in aonnection-with a.land use approval, the time to challenge the City's authority to impose the consents was during the land use process. In all but one of the, cases, the land use process has been completed and the appeal period has passed. The requirement to provide a consent to annexation, can no longer be challenged in those cases. B. None of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use proceedings have in any way challenged the consents or the requirement to provide the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified that they affirmatively desire that their properties be annexed to the City of Tigard. The applicant for the one laird use process that has not been•completed (Arlington Heights 3) has testified that the consent to annex that territory was voluntarily provided, and the. City Council finds that the consent in that case was voluntary. General Concern For The Bull Mountain Area 7. Some opponents stated concerns related to the Bull Mountain area in general and to their'... property in unincorporated areas of Bull'Mountain." Some of them argued that the proposed annexations should not proceed because of the negative vote when the Bull CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS"-- ANNEXATIONS Page 3 Mountain Annexation Plan was presented to the voters in the area to be annexed. A. The rights and interests of the owners and registered voters in the areas proposed for annexation are recognized by statute. The statutes do not create a legally protected, interest for other persons. B. These annexations are different from the annexation plan presented to the voters. These annexations are property-specific annexations under ORS Chapter 222. The City and the annexation applicants are not requesting approval of an annexation plan.. The rejection of an annexation plan•under ORS Chapter 195 does not prevent later annexation of specific territory under a different annexation statute.. "Double Maiority" Vote 8. Some opponents of the annexation argued that a "double ,majority"-vote {a separately tabulated vote in the City and in the'area to be annexed} is required. A. A "double majority" vote is or will be required for annexation plans under ORS Chapter, 195. However, for annexations under ORS Chapter 222, votes in the City are not required unless required by City charter or ordinance, and votes in the area to be annexed are not required if certain criteria are.met. A vote in.the area to be' annexed is not required if all of the owners of all of the land and a majority of the electors in the area to be annexed,,if any, consent to the annexation. ORS 222.125. The City. Charter and Code do not require a vote within the•City, B: As to each of the annexations; the'City has received the consents of all of the owners of all of the land.. The City has also received the consents of all of the, registered voters in each area that has registered voters. These annexations' are. not annexation plan annexations under ORS. 195, so the double majority 'requirement does not apply. The City is not required to hold a•vote in any of the territories to be annexed,, either because. there are no electors in the areas to be annexed or because the City has the consent of a majority of the electors in those areas: "Islands" Of Unincorporated Areas Surrounded By The City 9. Some opponents argued that these annexations create islands of unincorporated areas surrounded by the City. They also note that the City may later annex thoseislands without consent of owners or electors. A. There is no legal prohibition on the creation of islands. The City must consider annexation applications that create islands under applicable standards. While the Council 'must consider whether the borders created by an annexation are so irregular as to potentially cause problems with the provision of police services, CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS, Page 4 the police department accepts these boundaries. as being acceptable and not ' causing confusion for the provision of police services. The police department has . provided written statements that they can provide services. The Council. finds'that the boundaries are not, irregular to the extent they create confusion in the provision.ofpolice services. B. The City does have the authority to annex islands, but is aware that the statutory authority to annex islands may be withdrawn, as it has been withdrawn from one other city and from certain types of land: The possibility of a future annexation proceeding is not an applicable standard' or criterion, in deciding; whether to approve these annexations. Regular Boundaries 10. Several persons 'commented that the annexations will not result in a regular boundary..: A. The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plan Policy .10:1.2, Which provides: - Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City, shall be based on findings . . ,with respect to the following: a.. The annexation eliminate an existing "pocket' 'or "island of unincorporated territory; or -b. The annexation will not create anirregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situationio determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City;_ - • c: The police department has commented on the annexation; d. •The land is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is contiguous to the City boundary; e. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(x). B. Policy 10.1.2 is complied with if either (1) subsection a or (2) subsections b' through,e are met. These annexations comply with subsections b through e. The. annexation boundary will not make:it difficult for the police in emergency situations to determine whether the parcel is within or without the City. The police department has ' commented on the annexation and stated that it"is capable of providing service. - All areas proposed for annexation are within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and are contiguous to the City. The `services listed in 10.1.1(a) (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection) can be provided to the areas to be annexed - the City and other responsible service providers have capacity to provide service to the areas to be, annexed. The CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 5 _ T Council finds that the annexations provide for, a reasonable extension. of the City's 'boundaries. Individual Comments - Testimony at Hearing Les and Ellen Godowski IL The Godowskis argued that the annexations will also,prevent certain areas from creating their own cities or annexing to King City.' A. The City has no obligation to refrain from annexing territory based on the r possibility that some other city may be incorporated in 'the area at some point in the future. B. All applicable plans and intergovernmental agreements that address urbanization or the provision of urban services designate Tigard as the City that will annex and/or provide urban services to the areas being annexed. Charles Radley 12. Charles Radley. argued that the annexations would violate Dolan V."-City of Tigard and. that there is no "essential nexus." Mr. R.adley also :provided a written document. A. Dolan v. City of TYgard#plies only to cases.in which the City exacts property from aproperty owner at the time of a land use approval. Dolan does not apply-to annexations: B. •To.the extent the Mr., Radley is afguing that the City could not require the ' property 'owners to consent to annexation -as a condition of land use approval, that' challenge is too late: The land use approvals are final•and cannot be collaterally challenged. Furthermore, Mr. Radley was'not the applicant or a landowner in any of the land use cases and lacks standing -to challenge conditions that have been accepted by .the applicants. C. The "essential nexus requirement is imposed on exactions by the Nollan v. ' California Coastal Commission case. Like Dolan, the case applies only to .exactions at the time of land use approvals, not to annexations. To the extent that Mr. Radley is challenging conditions of approval in-,the previous land use cases, . that'challenge'is too late, and Mr. Radley lacks standing to make the challenge. . D.. • The document that* Mr' Radley provided is an excerpt discussing the requirement, under Rhode Island law, that a building official must issue a building permit•that' meets the requirements of the building code.- Rhode Island law., concerning CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS - ANNEXATIONS Page 6. building officials' is not relevant to any issue regarding these annexations. If Mr. Ridley is attempting to argue that the City cannot require a consent to annexation, any requirement regarding consents to, annexations.by the City are imposed in the context of a land use proceeding.. The City has more authority and more discretion in land use proceedings than in issuing building permits. ' Julie Russell .13. In addition to issues raised by others, Ms.. Russell- claimed that the map included with the notice of annexation was inaccurate as to which areas are included within the City limits and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell argued that the City's process violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1. and. CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell stated dissatisfaction with'the proposed zoning. A. The maps provided with the notice were accurate-. They showed the location of the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by a shaded yellow area. There is no requirement to provide a map with the notice of the annexation hearing. Even if there was some inaccuracy, the maps provided sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed and their relationship to the City: The City provided notice in compliance with all applicable requirements. In the event that some person may have failed to receive notice, failure of 'a person to receive notice does not invalidate the notice, which was properly provided. B. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 provides: "The City shall maintain-an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is not an approval standard or criterion for an annexation application. The City's land use regulations have been acknowledged, and those regulations provide the process, including citizen involvement, for considering land use applications. - That,process includes notice and a hearing, ;and the City provided notice and•a hearing, as require&by the CDC. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by the regulations. Citizens, including`Ms. Russell,, have had the opportunity to be involved in process. The process of necessity works differently in a quasi judicial , -land use process than in a legislative process. C. CDC 18.320.020 provides: „ 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards' A.° - Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a Type IV procedure,-as governed, by Chapter 18.390 using standards of approval contained in Subsection B2 below. 'B. Approval Criteria. The decision to`approve, approve with CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS " ANNEXATIONS Page 7 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. annexationdarea; and 2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies. and implementing ordinance provisions-have been satisfied. C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive'plan designation and the zoning designation placed. „ on the property shall be the:City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land-which carries County designations, the.City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan,map.and zoning designations to the City designations which are the most similar. A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or zoning map designation other than the.' existing designations. (See - Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation ' . has been approved. D. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning, designations to City designations which are most similar. The City used a Type IV approval process.. The City has capacityto provide all required services to the area to be annexed, and the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, including those' in Chapter 10, have been satisfied. The properties being annexed already have City comprehensive plan and zoning designations, that have been adopted and imposed by the County. Ms. Russell specifically argued that the City lacks parks capacity in the area. However, the City has sufficient parks capacity throughout the City to provide service, to its residents; including residents in the areas being annexed.' The services listed in ' the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer,' storm sewer, streets, police and fire protection, are the essential services that must be available, and those services will • be available to the newly annexed areas. Ms:,Russell questioned the adequacy of the street, system: The-City Council.finds that the streef system is' adequate to , provide service and will remain adequate. If the properties are not annexed, they' could still be developed consistent Mth.the County zoning, which is the same as t City zoning, so whether the properties are annexed or not does not affect the impact on the street system.. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 8 D. The areas to be annexed all have existing City zones. that were established consistent with Table•320.1. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive - Plan and applicable Community Development Code provisions. . Scott Miller 14.. In addition to issues addressed in the ``Issues Raised By More Than One.Person" section of these findings, Mr. Miller stated a concern with an increase in taxes.. Mr. Miller also argued that the consents received by the. City are' not consents. . A: Mr: Miller does not own property being annexed:. His-property is outside the area proposed for annexation. His taxes will not increase as a result of the annexation. The property owners in the area to be annexed have consented to the annexation. Whether taxes may increase is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding ,an annexation. B. For each of the annexations, the City has either the written consent of the property ' owners or a petition from the property owners to initiate the'annexation. All are, valid consents. Lisa Hamilton Treick 15. - In addition to issues address in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of. these findings, Ms. Hamilton Treik argued that Measure 37 gives property owners rights that are violated by these annexations.' A. Ms. Hamilton Treik does not own-property that will be annexed by these annexations. All owners. of property being annexed have consented to these annexations. The property owners or their representatives who testified expressly stated that they voluntarily consent to the annexations. One of them, Tom 'Weber, stated that he actively: sought annexation to Tigard because of the value it brings to his property.. Measure 37 is not an applicable standard or criterion for. annexation.- 16. . Ms. Hamilton Treik also argued that the City has no authority to condition land use, approvals or acceptance of land use applications on a consent to annexation. A. In addition to Findings 6 and 7, the various agreements with.the County and other . urban service providers,. including the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement and. Tigard Urban Service Agreement, anticipate that the City will provide planning services and will ultimately annex Tigard's urban service area.. Requiring annexation is not inconsistent with-those-agreements. Urban Service Agreement Section LD provides that the City shall endeavor to annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed for annexation. Requiring annexation consents effectuates this provision of the Urban Service Agreement. The Urban Services: Intergovernmental Agreement gives. Tigard all land use decision-making,authority over the area to be annexed: Land use authority CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS -=ANNEXATIONS Page 9 , includes the authority to impose conditions. The City has the authority to impose a condition of approval requiring,consent to annexation when,it receives a land use application for a property outside the City. C• Individual Comments - Post-Hearing Written Submissions Julie Russell - 17. Ms. Russell again discussed general opposition to annexation in the Bull Mountain area, HB 2484, SB 887, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.Land 10.1.2, and CDC 18.320.020. , The above findings address those arguments. 18. Ms. Russell also argues that the zoning is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull, Mountain .Community'Plan. The areas have all been rezoned by the County and the zoning being applied is the zoning.required by CDC 1,8.320. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the . written testimony of John Marquart, there is little or no practical difference between Washington County R 6 and Tigard R-7 zoning, as applied. 19. Ms. Russell argues that not everyone who was entitled-to receive notice actually received notice. The City provided notice, as required by applicable regulations. While it'is possible that some persons did not receive notice, the City complies with the notice requirements. 20. Ms: Russell complains about possible effect&on other service providers, The City has not received any negative comments from other•service providers. All service providers in the area have agreed that the area being annexed will be annexed to Tigard.' Services will.be provided as agreed to in the Urban Services Agreements,entered into by the City' and other service providers. 21. ' Ms. Russell argues that the annexation will interfere with the orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services. However, her argument appears to be that services can be provided.without annexation: That does not.mean that annexation will disrupt or interfere with service-provision. The agreements between the service providers will ensure orderly and economic provision of services. „ 22. Ms. Russell.argues that the Alberta Rider School property should not be annexed. None' . of -her arguments relate to any applicable standard or criterion. + .23.. Ms. Russell opposes the Summit Ridge annexation as non=contiguous. The Summit, Ridge'area being annexed will be contiguous with the City on annexation. 24. Ms. Russell objects to the Annexation of Arlington., Heights 3 on the grounds that the. annexation will cause. annexation to a homeowners association. That argument does not related to any applicable standard of criterion. Participation in a homeowner's association is a matter of contract between the parties and unrelated to a City's-authority to annex. Ms Russell also argues that the. City cannot annex only part of a subdivision. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS • Page 10 ' , No applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation of part, of a subdivision. Furthermore, Arlington Heights 3 is a separate subdivision from Arlington Heights 1 and.- . 2. -Lavelle and Marie Day 25:. The Days object to the annexation on the grounds that the annexation may interfere with efforts to annex to King City or to create a new.city. This argument does not relate-to'any applicable criterion or standard. None of the Days' other arguments are based on applicable standards or criteria. Jackie and Gary. Kislin 26.'. The Kislings raise issues related to HD 2484 andBB 2722: • Those.bills are addressed in the above findings. Heriry Kane 27. Mr. Kane,makes'arguments against island annexations. None of the, annexations are island annexations. . Lisa Hamilton-Treik, and Tom Treik 28. Ms. Hamilton-Treik and Mr. Treik oppose the process in which the hearings on four' - annexations were combined as causing hardship on those who wish to appeal. 'Even if the hearings had not been combined, the hearings could have been, and most likely would ' have been held at.the same. meeting. Therefore, the appeals would have all been due at the same time. Combining the hearings allowed people to state their objections a single ...time so" as to avoid multiple repeated testimony. All persons were given a hall opportunity to`address .any issues related to any. of the four annexations. . 29. They also object to the boundaries as being irregular and question the voluntariness of the consents. These issues are addressed above. 30. They also oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to Tigard's TIF accounts. That is not a relevant issue. and does not relate to any applicable. standard or criterion. Philip E. Decker r 31. Mr. Decker opposes the annexations as not•being contiguous., No property being annexed- will be separated.from the City by any intervening unincorporated territory: The annexations are of contiguous property:: ; 32. Mr. Decker argues that ORS 222.115 allows.annexation contracts only for contiguous . parcels. ORS 222.115 does not require that property be contiguous at the time. an annexation contract is signed. One purpose of ORS ,222:115 is to allow properties that . CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 11 are not contiguous to consent to annexation so that they can receive.urban services immediately and, be annexed later when intervening properties annex. The contiguity requirement applies only when the annexation becomes effective. : 33. Mr. Decker argues that the areas being annexed are irregularly.shaped. The shape of the area being annexe& is not an, issue. .34. Mr.'Decker argues that previous annexations were improper. The previous annexations are final and have not been challenged They cannot be collaterally attacked at this time. Comments n. Support' ' 35.. After the hearing, the City received several written comments in support of the proposed annexations, including statements from Sean Foushee, on behalf of the applicants for the . 'Mountain View' Estates, from John Marquart on behalf of the applicant for the Wilson Ridge'annexation, and from Tom Weber, on behalf of the owners of the Arlington' Heights 3 property, all of whom stated that the annexation applications were voluntary. Mir. Marquartand Mr: Weber addressed other issues; strongly supporting the annexations of their respective areas. G:l nunilTigardlrevisidannecationfindingsOg I705.doc CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 12 . t . 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON , ORDINANCE NO.2005- . AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 2.68. ACRES, APPROVING WILSON RIDGE ANNEXATION (ZCA2005-00002), 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 QRS 222.120(4)(B) and 222.170 to initiate an annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors'registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and written :consent from owners of pore than half the. land in the territory proposed to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the' City of Tigard is authorized by'ORS,222.120(5) and 222.520 .to' withdraw',propeities which currently lie within the boundary of the' Tigard Water. District, the Washington County Enhanced . Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #l, 'and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on August 9, 2005, to consider the annexation of two (2) parcels of land consisting of 2.68 acres and. withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water . District; the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol. District,- Washington County Urban Roads . Maintenance District, Washington County Street. Lighting District'#1,'and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS,. the City Council left the record open for written submissions for an additional seven days' after the hearing on August 9, 2005 and allowed a further seven days, on August 23, 2005 for submission of responses to new evidence submitted.during that time; as provided by.ORS 197.763(6)(c); and WHEREAS, pursuant to ^ORS :222.520{2) ..the City is liable to. the Water District for certain, debt obligations; however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the'City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS,. pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the Tigard. Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District; Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed, properties from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance. District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington . County Vector Control District by Ordinance; and ORDINANCE No. 2005-- ~ ZCA2005-00002 Wilson Ridge Annexation Page l' 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 current zoning district is k-7, an existing City zone that has,been adopted by the County and the zoning after annexation would remain R=7 so that no zone change is necessary,,and by annexation the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard goes into effect; and 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 the written materials submitted after the hearing and determined that. withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY.OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: , SECTION 1: The Council adopts the staff report and the document entitled, "Supplemental Finding . Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222" as findings.. In addition; Council adopts the document entitled "Findings in Response to Comments" as additional findings of fact., SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the.parcels described in'the attached Exhibit "A" 1 and shown in Exhibit "D" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District; Washington County Street Lighting District #1; and the Washington County Vector Control District: SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be. effective 30 days after its passage by the Council; signature by the Mayor and posting by the City Recorder. SECTION 4: City staff is directed to take all' nee measures to, implement the annexation, includingfi]ing certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, r filing with state and county agencies 'as required by law, and providing notice to utilities. SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of.the withdrawal of the property from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District'#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District shall.be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the . Tigard WaterDistrict shall be Julyl, 2006. SECTION 7: 'In accordance with ORS; 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. ORDINANCE NO.2005-~ ZCA2005-00002 Wilson Ridge Annexati on Page 2 of 3 .PASSED: By. 0011! M045 vote of all Cotuicil embers present after being read by number~and title only, this. 13 dayof 2005. athy. eatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this lJ~ day of 2005. ,,4ewzI Craig qIrksen, Mayor Approved as 'to form: Avt~-A vc Attorney Cl 3•05 i Date , ORDINANCE NO.2005 / ZCA2005-00002 Wilson Ridge Annexation page 3 of 3 ..Wlson Ridge EXHIBIT A 1CA2005-00002 al ha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.., LEGAL DESCRIPTION GRAHAM ANNEXATION JOB NO. 326-027 A.PARCEL OF LAND, LOCATED'IN THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 . WEST,'- WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, DESCRIBED 'AS FOLLOWS:' BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF10T l3 OF THE. PLAT OF "MOUNTAIN GATE". BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN, DEED DOCUMENT NO. 2004-06529; THENCE ALONG THE'EAST LINE OF SAID PROPERTY r 'AND SAID LINE EXTENDED, NORTH 01 °31137" EAST 132,4TFEET TO A POINT -ON THE:t NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S.W. BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD {COURTY ROAD NO. 25131 LYING 20.00 REU; RIGHT-ANGLE MEASURE, NORTHI=ASTERLY OF. THE CENTERLINE; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH 59°20'07' EAST 472.33 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF WESTERLY RIGHT OF-WAY LINE OF SW :183w.. AVENUE LYING 25.00 FEET, RIGHT-ANGLE, MEASURE WEST OFTHE.CENT ERLINE OF SW 133RD AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID EXTENSION AND. WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH 00°31.'25" EAST 192.98 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE. PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED DOCUMENT NO. 2000 04259; THENCE LEAVING - AID. RIGHT OF-WAY LINE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF.SAID.PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED DOCUMENT NO.. .2000-14685 NORTH •89° , 43'44" WEST .40259 FEET TO A POINT LYING 10.00 FEET RIGHT ANGLE•MEASUREEAST OF THE EAST LINE OF THE PLAT OF "MOUNTAIN GATE' THENCE SOUTH 01' 31' 3T" WEST, 928.57 FEET PARAL-LE:L•TO- THE EAST LINE OF "MOUNTAIN GATE" AND "MOUNTAIN GATE NO.2 THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 880-22' 19" WEST 10.00 FEET TO A THE SOUTHEAST CORNER 'LOT 64 "MOUNTAINGATE NO.2"; THENCE ALONG THE. AFOREMEN110NED PLAT LINES - NORTH 01 31'37" EAST 1213.81 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 3.104 ACRES. THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION IS-WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEY. NO. 22,110' N-\Pm]\328.027\Word\LEGAL DESCRIP1101_GRAHAMdoc Plaza West-Suite 230-96MSW Odk- Portland -Oregon 97223 Office 503 452-8003 -fox 503 452-8043 www. a1phc3communitTc6m ' 2S'1 09AC•. 2S •1 MAG• "y>, ;,,•.y:°,:J'v::~'f:~~'u;1:'t:n. f:'iy,:u; 1M.",, ;t, y ~ t41~; .,ri t r ~ , i,•-~~+_1L: ~ .~•rr.C' \ r , .ti r~ .ti ; rt,'; I r' r Y ; Tw ° ~ ' , ' u, "fit.:, list I ' }"'N, •1u;Jt;J r7t~;ir ~yy ~'t`~•~r C f:sS ;n;f'r: ' •111 y"~' u•, i .n• ''r 7 n„r,'''sr; in' t,' } ~ . ~ ' X01 • • r r, + r}t '"i .r, h.. ih 'it; ~ f r ,r,. % ,r, ' 1' ' : y~ •p' 7 ~ 1, 7, •t' ' Ji, ry . , 1 . ,11' tl 'l;' t; t.; , 1, 'ry. ; \i 1 , , ,r NNW. ;e,'~+ •~n r'' , r 7i r' .r m ')t;•'n;;i1;,'rtJt.~; fitly ' ;n .t A w +t:'ty,n, rti ~ , •y: ti' n' n, pxl:P r •d• t tr' !?9;st,.,r•: . yi It. : t. ~ . li r h; ,lt :^.,.ti •R. t'4.i1. - '~'t'M~ 't: ~H;•~.~ ' \ t~~,syry~'~ 7I' u"/! - ..n :ir.~ it:•;T,i~ .'l . w ' '7~ %t t; .ti 4' ;t 4'';Y,; 1P. i )r , v,' ~.i' t i t'y r' .K. Ci A,~,r~t, .7i• . ni :`I{} ' 11;11' '•7, i':1'' .Tr J W ,17+ :rs 'v ' , b ; 1 ,'r, A u.,, lt, ,r } M, , C : a - noo 1 - : r. 7 u r u 1'' ✓ , k ;u, ;•i k,qi ;r' ,t y •Jt..~id:. h: ' r;,, r,. It .,'w: ~11r , 'r, ~1 y, O a~ ~ ,r 'R• ~ Q. v. i PfM'r . t't~' '•',',i' t7;~ r , ' ~ ' ' t' '1' i . s,,'4t; ;r,'~•r:... i - •>ti; ;x ; ; r; '1 r~~.~''. tt / ,,rti, 't, n, . it r ` ^ ~,y~ t 'r,'''ti-;K 'r >q'p' t, ly,:h E;.7r''' y, r' l~ r L '✓.>,sR'i•')irat u~:I~ i r5{t.'kM~;.;~~ts;: i+"'i}:y, n; }i•, ''1t, :n: a . L' i Y~ ;r,.~r, ,1 n' t''i'. ti,r - - ' . J.' ;n; 4, ~ r F ' ' y i u 'ti ~''r. ?I:': Jt'.+:', u':J• u; ♦ y'+1tt.+y' :+ut' ~t i - ~ ' '71 II•; ' , 7 ; , , ,•'.i7, ':h; '`i ' 1 , 1, jIT •i{N.; ,t'+~• K.-. • ! 1 f ' f ~.I, }A1~7 ! t`1 'f~F.t' --i ti< • g,'~"i 1tL++~ , - '1, ''''S,'~1, 'n X, 'r . , ,,'/r• ,\i/: Niru =.,.r+ t:;1W.: Ji 77t - • v ; •.,!Y ,•y 1', y t<. % I .'I:.u, J., ,Y ; : v' • ' /r ar'G; +n. - +..~JOdL~. r, rV . / r' J' • • 11,,: lr:~:' 'rrt'•; 'J:+y 1 hY' 7 I-. r' ' •1• r , .ate - '•:r; ; , ,U; ,~a •yl,' . ,;'ij 7t.. , , :r 'J. •7'.lt tT, NN ' ti!~•.. ' Y. 1u ;r '''n' ' J7.r WASk]NQTONCOUNTY OREGON - ce"I • M i':,; st; +t' .'r"" s „ 'n;",ii p~ •:,•st„raur;x eW11414e1148ec7foNO T SMiNW.ns, 'Qy1••. 't . : ,''''h\`'n t'71..•., - QU ' .N `/'k~ ''ma'r', ro,r, - •eahta t•»log, - - :\1,, r, .•'.'J•, u r" } S r, ..w t ,1{~ al Nr'Q/ 151 ~.!'ff a t~Se ev i • 'r :ir. . N +7t JL _ pl•+a A- - ,.f;s•4.y„'~ X 'X, C. 4 's.q; .a 'r, w - ueW - ' Q it+tw- • - ,,,~.,5~ N'wi•'t;'' • I y ~ Ft- v r A .w ?ry twa, • J: 'Y,' . , Q Ulm - - 01 K M. 'X ,}71f+y! 1! N 23774' y> `y''• .t . Yom'' "SA 9 'SM r H' IN wi ! / hyy ~`w)' ri 'K Jt' ' N X. r4n: uro M, y~~,: I.ri•.1' yY /OA ApPfIItUGtLl6alsaw.uW66r777At _ p ~t Cy '1 Ulm Z O , ,~r, r~Yv rah' ^ CR , y.rSu. „f It ~ti \;l ull ,r7t~r'~i - O 0 ' ~Q" , ~ ' ~ t ~F?J' a11wM9Vt~o"` " .NI`vH•P.1~''L • r,~t:n, {r`~, , ~!k, t~ i11 9LSS+ . v •I, _~r,.~_._~ r ~ ~ , :F,x, ►',"°Y ' tti/,,?, ,,1i tt. ~ ;u' " •'i i ?t Y ,.a.H - ,`'n :r A; 'Ir;•'%\)• i',u'~0'i rif '~0- { - O ''r n' h' { t, y rr 1{'•>r ' T { r' r: rr tr '23•"?%jc7- 700 • O 11 - ow ti tit, 'C '''f'' r• 'sek: +7/a f y, • . Sr; , \ ,t 't.,,x `;,y;~t' `i.H'i'. '•14~,~ / t'„/t': n ,Op ti • u4a ' !r p . • ' • i- fn':,t:S t7 ,....5, . rte' ;+;n;,r' tit, Yt, ••,s ;r, •'.i •,u.r. :v t,. 1 is . • .i : •.'ib{ :ti, ' ~ ' - 'm,. r"y.., ~ ;"'\•M V; 7i .Ky, '.9t1 l ,t; ' 'iu}, t, ' sr i 1 tis rl. i.r Iwo t;'i ' 't{;;n ' - 'u''`s','t.'Lpk• ~ u',, Q`~Q~ u."° i _ ~ { ' ;'~,yty; ' s;~,it~ ~7k •,r~•'r.ti .ti s+, r s , s{7c r .e • '')I IM X.;'y~~•:~~•~•.''~.'t\~1 •S •:ti,~~t; ,ir, n, K, - T 7100 A,yV,i•i tt " 1f' r r 1~ ; SWflH Ia"C ulra 7rYX) ,t ,r , \ ty \r*' COURT l%iL.Y.r, 0. t• Mme' I 1X ~Y~ '11"A le. •1, '~Iu W 1r;~°",•'' , . tloti , -wls.r tt '.r.;.'.•;'''+.1+•u~':!!X; 7; i ,,;K;;r'+: ' . Al, G °n n ; roc k . ! :~:,+:ti ~*'7•r4~ri'y:;u j;,ri ` r MAN i ~rrtir:, `,;:.;rh•7r.y, AssessMont r v;• :t` r•"~ f•. y:: r" - -".a iinwa 7S',~ u',:Y, • r. T Q X O t o Pi . r +om "~'y::u:?: , ,rl;x 01 PLO/TgDATE gp7gpNevOmbpeEru~9y0p,~Q1004 ma" r': 'n' 'lt : x ONLP A O~A 1158 &8 D X. 14 ~er~'r. , f.. Lr ~ 'uo •a - :•tn'•' 'r,'-! f:'') ti{''r 'h: FWwrWyAwM/W.Mtn/w+vw.au.miri . LIJ~ 7: 'n' i•, ~ • •'•,1 •l;r/, MM+YI.•rw1N•~~/dWw.Mtwwr+rN ` ti , ` : ;5•: ;nf~•n•Jti'~r:•t'r4J,,:ti ,y aeerl/nnyimtd.rYa Mw NNAN, e; Mr+pe41, py' ) rrM nnaawe~rww ''~riT"'"'";t' "c•; }t;'~ ?r„' '~~:+r ,t •'r}J~r• :~u,';i" ;;''':;,tir'. °,fr; •{r'a;r's.'h;;)!yr''~ tir'X' r~! Q t•, :ti 4ti 7;~: rt..n t.N r1; ;ii 'IJ, ;r.' ?,;,u.\ : T79r-rt;7r 'I{f;+iti yt. . Y' 'n' ' i 7t; K, i4 }s..4..)r''>;':t; ;7t; ,7f . '~7c - y :n j.4, r, 4 X V:.'J:.,\ Y• il: , 1a,'' ,n 1t. art, a:••7ri ,u~ :u - }S, +t•' }t i'. n~'tr,( l;•w ,I,~,~~' .•;u"St' ` u. ; n' ;7r n: ~,•:rr' , tr:~'n::'t: ,r~: :r' u::u' ''t.:th' { :r'' •I r, v; 'u; 4;. u 'n' ti 'i. i rf J ' . 4 'rY\{ h. y:'',: 'r,' r ,v 7;' r: r a at r. OA p.. t~,t~oo 2S 1 09AC~ ~•251~9>~C - • Ot060.{.PXiS iNPORµAYIbX PYaY~li • vla"ITY ra W" WON t~ . Il wpm :ALP►N~V» A~ 2045.44042 law- `E a ~ as h } e' . 1 200SCO ' A00 Foal , • -o too' RHETT thIs Pe tot q ft4 M e i nu. Wr ion, A lnt nOY ;d a ~shovld W tSt2b ow Ht99Hd T(59 ? 344t Attachment to Ordinance No. 2005-11 . See Section 1 ATTACHMENT 5 Agenda Item: Hearing Date: _ August 9,.2005 7:30 PM ' • - ;._,••/-~.sq l.Y ~ii~ 4~~~4 Try ••?.I,. a/,"~/W-_• , , • P ...s:c~=....:._a. .wr.....n:a..i::.....c..,,..~a.a.~.fi'".:..a..- -'.t,~ ~..wu...~w.i.:.~... ti:.i.,n"..ryy~%~`.D~:L[i~ SECTION 1. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: WILSON RIDGE ANNEXATION CASE NO.: ' Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2005-00002 AGENT: ..Alpha Community Development ' • - - : - - Attn. deriy-Patmer-'-_ - - - _ - - - - - - - -9600 SW Oak Street -Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 OWNER: Ndde and Linda Graham 13400 SW Bull Mountain Rd = Tigard, OR 97224 PROPOSAL:. The applicant, has applied for.annexation -of •2-68 acres into the City of Tigard. ` . CURRENT ZONING r . DESIGNATION:. .11-7, Medium Density Residential. EQUIVALENT CITY ZONING DESIGNATION: R T; Medium Density Residential. The R-7 zong district is designed to accommodate attached single-family. homesin , detached single-family homes with or, without accessory residentlal units, at a minimum lot size . of 5,000 squatb feet, and duplexes, at, s minimum lot s¢e of 10,000 square. feet Mobile home - parks, and subdivisions are also permitted outri gghL Some civic and' institutional -uses are also permitted cond-fionally. LOCATION:. 13350 and 1 3400.'SW Bull Mountain Road, WCTM 2S109AC, Tax Lots 100 and 200 APPLICABLE , REVIEW ' CRITERIA: , Community Development Code- Chapters 18-320 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Polides 2 and 10; Metro' Code Chapter 3.09; and ORS Chapter 222. STAFF RFMRTTaTHF MY MI Writ SECTION IL STAFF RECOMMENDATION f ff:c1~'~? to"Cpuha7tad~t;tpr o pE% = tits' u r.:. €I,' la>Kal i :a 04 ad 1~fgif ~e • cffR _e C~ ilaF.. ~r~ef 4- Pfaff t Q % :L o r; SECTION Ili.. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Information and Proposal Descripti= The applicant, p a Community eve opment, has applied for subdivision review for which a decision for approval is pending but has not yet become effective..The subdivision is tentatively named Wilson Ridge_ A standard condition. of approval for -subdivision proposals on property that borders City limits within the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement area is that the property, annex prior to final .'plat approval. - There is no requirement that an applicant or properly owner wart until- receiving land use approval to annex the property. A parcel that is confguous to the city, limits may apply for annexation at any time. The total area represented in this annexation request is 2.68 acres and is . contiguous to the present city limits along the western property boundary.-- i ; Vicinity information. T he subject parcels are located. at the southwest comer .of SW 133rd and Bull Mountain Road. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The Fe -levant criteria in t is case. are Tigard ompre ensive an Policies 2.1.1, 110.1.1,- 1.0.1.2, and; Tigard Community Development Code.Chapter-18.320. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant policies of the. Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: Corn reihensive Plan o icy a urry shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shalt assure that citizens will. be provided an opportunity to-be involved in all phases of the planning process. - This Policy requires an-ongoing citizen involvement program. Interested parties and surrounding - roperty owners witfim 500 feet have been notified of the public hearing and notice of the tearing has been published in a newspaper of general circulation. The site. has been posted since .Tune 23, 2005.. There have been a number of opportunities for citizens to be involved in the decision matting process, including the review of the subdivision request' Policy 10.1.1:' The City 'shall review, each of the following services as to adequate capacity or. such services to.-be made available, to serve the parcel. 'if develop-ed to the, most in{ense use allowed, and will not significantly reduce -the' level of services • available to developed and undeveloped fang within the City of Tigard- The services are: water; sewer, drainage; streets, police, and fire protection. This policy r uires adequate service capacity - delive to anneked parcels.Valley The City of Tigard Police, Engineering and Water Departments, NW'Natural Gas, Tualatin Fire and Rescue, have all reviewed the-annexation request and have offered no objections. -While the subdivision approval is complete but not.yet effective, in the subdivision review staff found that the adl'acent streets had adequate capacity,- sewers will be extended .kom the Alberta -Rider School site, storm drainage is cone ed through anew pipe tothe Alberta Rider pro ect,. and water is provided by an existing 1 ° water fine- in. Bull Mountain Road. The subdivisiion approval is contingent on. the applicant providing.these- services prior to recording the final pllat. This policy is satisfied. If required by an adopted capital improvements program ordinance, the applicant shall . sign and record with Washington -County a nonremonstrance agreement regarding the . following: The formation of a local. improvement district (L.I.D.) for any of the following services that could be provided through 'such a district. The extension or improvement of the following: water, sewer, drainage. and streets. The .formation of a special district for any of the above services or the inclusion of the.property, into a special service distric for any of the above see Ices. :No L•I.D's have. been required with the subject parcels or subdivision approval. All public infrastnicture listed above will have to be completed. before. the land is subdivided by a final subdivision.plat.• The costs of providing such services. Will be bome by. the applicant_ Since there are no.capital improvements identified for this site, no nonremonstrance agreement. is. necessary. The City shall provide urban sovices to areas within the Tigard. urban planning -area or with the urban growth boundary upon annexation. The City of Ti and has. an urban services agreement with Washington County for those areas Within the City's urban growth boundary. This policy has been complied with.. Policy 111.42:, approval of'proposed annexations of land by the city shall'be based on findings with retpect,to the, following: the annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of. unincorporated territory; or the annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an, emergency situation to determine -whether the parcel is within or outside the city; the police department has commented upon the annexation; the land is located within the Tigard urban planning area.and.is Contiguous to the city boundary; the annexation can be accommodated by the services . This Policy. pertains to boundary criteria for annexations. .'The proposed annexation. will not eliminate an existing "pocket or "island". of. unincorporated territory; however the annexation will also not create an irregular boundary malting it difficult for police to_detemmine whether a particular parcel-is in or outside the city. The proposed annexation will incororate the entire subdivision..boundary for Wilson Ridge. There, is along 10 foot wide "pole" that. runs south from the parcels. This is d remnant of an.easeent for access that benefited other properties. further south. That easement has, been vacated on the subject parcel, so essentially what remains is -a long strip of land. While odd in its configuration, the.. annexation is simply -including the entire extent of the parcel as this.policy requires. There is no attempt to include a cherry stem {{typically achieved by annexing. roads) with this: subject fequesL All future lots within this subdivis"ion will be inside city limits. The_ police department has commented on the proposed annexatoni request and-did not voice any objections.-- The land is within the'Urban Services Area inside the Urban Growth Boundary and , is bordered by the city limits on the northem,side. Services to the subject property are addressed above. This policy is met CommunitV Develo ment Code Sec oi£on' . is Section. addresses approval standards for annexation proposals: All services and facilities are available to the. area and have sufficient. capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; Adequate , service • (water, sewer, drainage; streets, police, and fire protection) capacity is available to serve the annexed parcels. The City ofTigard Police, 'Engineering and Water Departments, NW Natural Gas; Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue; have all reviewed the annexation request and have offered no objections. Additionallyy,.. the adequacy and availability of services to serve the intended R 7 Medium Density residential development will be reviewed and conditioned as necessary as part of the Wilson Ridge subdivision review. Therefore, this policy is satisfied- .`.S the applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions . have been. sati sfied. Applicable Comprehensive Plan poiicies have been addressed above.. The- implementing ordinance provisions', of ORS 222, TCDC 18.390, and Metro Code 3.09 were followed in Processing. this anriexation -request. Conformance with other development code provisions twill be addressed-at the time the property develops. This standard has been met. . Asst nment of comprehensive. !an and zonin' , desi nations. The comprehensive .pan designation an -the -zoning designation p ace on a 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 designa ions shall 'occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation.' An the case of land-which carries •Coixnty 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. The subject property. is in the Urban Service Area' and 'is -zoned-,. R-7 -medium density residential, pursuant'to the City of Tigard's Urban Services. IntergoVornmental Agreerrlent . The. R-7 zoning designation is-consistent•with the original Washington -Coun{)(s' 6 zoning ' designation as shown in the table below- The City's zoning was adopted by-the •County with 'the City's R-7 zoning -district. when 'the Intergovemmenta! Agreement was signed between -the county and the city to provide city planning services to this area.. Therefore, the pperty: does not need to be rezoned upon annexation.. According to- Section 18.320.020.C'..' the City's Comprehensive. plan. and zoning designations' occur automatically arid concurrently with the , annexation. Conversion table. Table, 3201 summarizes the conversion of the CounYs plan and zoning esigna ons to City designations which are most similar.. • TALE 32U_ i - - , CO~~'E'iLS101 Tr113L1; FOR Ct7lI\TY ANO CITY ' PLAIN AN-D ZONING DESM-NATIONS FRRes.'6 n County Laud Use' City of'Tigard Zoning City ofTlgard PL•uii Designation Plait Desigun idn itslacre R--4.5 SI'R 7,500 sq. ft Low density 16 uhitslacre nitsiacrc R-7 SrR 5,000 sq. ft. 4<A_ density 6-12 urtitstat re nim/acre 'k-12 I~Multi- ily 12 unitslacre Med_ density 6-12 unitslacre 2 unj,wacre R-12 Mul -family 12 xtnits.+ac a Med_ density. 6-12 units acre R-15 Res_, Is unitslacr>r R725 Multi-family 25 units/are Medium-i- igh density 13-25 un itslacre R-24 Res_ 24 uniislacres' - R-25 Multi-rarnily 25 units/acre Medium-High density :13-25' un itslacre Office Commercial C-P Com•niercial Professional CP Commercial Prof L--%si*naI NC ?~eiFhborhood Commercial, ' CN NeiszJiUorttaod Commercial C\I'Neigobcirhood Caazmerciat CBu Commercial Business CBD Commercial Susine_ss CBD coiftlmc=ial Business District District District GC General Commercial CG Gcncral Commercial CG {ieneral Conu►rcrcial IND industrial f-L i iglu rndustrial Light lndusiriato Metro e. a 109 requires the additional, standards to be addressed in annexation' decisions, in addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed.and satisfied.. as discussed below: Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or annexatiorrplan adopted pursuant to ORS 195:065; .The processing has-been done, 'consistent with applicable, Urban Service Provider agreements: Consistency with directly applicable provisions -of urban ilanning or other agreement; other than agreements adopted: pursuant to ORS '!95.06 , between the affected entity ,arid a necessary party; The process required -by the Development. Code and Comprehensive Plan i$ consistent with the Urban~Plar ng Agreement for annexations. ; Consistency with specific 'directly applicable standards or 'criteria'' for boundary changes contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans; This has beeri discussed previously in this report and, as dikussed,'this criterion is satisfied. Consistency with specific -directly- applicable= standards • or.. criteria for, boundary changes contained in the`Regionat Framework Plan or any functional plans;'. Because the Development Code - has been- amended to comply. with applicable ' Metro . functional plan. requirements, by, complyiing-witli ae Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is consistent . W The . applicable Functional Plan and the Regional.' Framework plan. Whether the proposed changes will promote .or. not interfere with the timely,. orderly. .,and econotnic provisions of public facilities and services; The proposed annexation-will not interfere with:the provision of public facilities or services - because it is adjacentAo existing city•limits and. services; and the delivery of those services was anticipated as part of the urban services agreement which is intended to promote the timely, orderly, and economic delivery of those public facilities and services. If the proposed boundary change is for annexattion -of territory, to- Metro; a determination by. Metro Council that the territory, should be included in the. Urban 'Growth Boundary shall be the primary criterion for approval; The subject.property is already within the Metro-boundaries: Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary change. in question under state and local law. Consistency with other applicable'criteria has been discussed.previously,in this-report. CTA CC UCfX1OTT/11•L1C f`fT1/ /Nll l\I!`U ` • - SECTION V. AGI=NCY COMMENTS Washington County Department Of l and .Use. Transportation,' Verizon, Qwest Communications, Northwest Natural Gas; Beaverton School District #48, Corncast-Cable Corporation, Portland, General -Electric, Metro.Area-Comrriunications_; Cleanwater Servioes, . Metro Land Use & Planning, Tualatin. Hills Park' Rec. District, Tualatin Valley Water. District, Tualatin Valley. Fire Rescue,, and Tigard/Tualatin School District 23J have had .the opportunity. to review the proposal and have offered no. objections. . ~B0 NI =S'~ D ASS1 J>P OBIf E1'AN1CE PiNNGA`::;;%/ 1Q 5~:f L - July 28, 2005 organ acy I E' Associate Planner Jul! 28 2005 //t// a-z' /IV PPF30VED BY:,' rc •r ewers o . DATE Planning Manager.. STAFF RhPnRTTA THE my f INN . ' . PAI-F R n=;; . . SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS . CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH ORS CHAPTER 222 ZCA2005-00002 - Wilson Ridge The City is proceeding with this annexation without an election in.the•territory tabe annexed under ORS, 222.125.., That statute provides: .The legislative body of a city need not call or hold'an election in the city . or in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed or hold the .hearing otherwise required under ORS 222.120 when all of the owners of land. in that territory,and not less than 50 percent of the electors; if any, residing in the territory consent in writing to the annexation of the land in the territory and.file a statement of their consent with the legislative body: Upon'receiving written consent to annexation by owners and'electors under this section, the legislative body of the city, - by resolution or ordinance, may set the final boundaries of the area to be annexed by a legal description and proclaim the annexation. 'The Council finds: . 1.: There are two, owners .of the two properties that are in the territory proposed for annexation under ZCA2005-00002. Both owners have consented in writing to annexation to the City of Tigard and those consents have been duly filed with the City. , 2.. According to County voter registration information, two registered voters reside in the territory to be annexed under ZCA2005-00002. The City has received . -signed consents to annexation from both voters and,therefore has.the consents of.a majority of the electors.in the territory to be-annexed. 3. , Because the City has written consent of all owners of land and the majority of the electors in the territory proposed to be annexed.under ZCA2005-00002, the City may proceed with annexation of that territory without a vote in the territory to be } annexed, pursuant to ORS 222.125. ? Revised Findings as. Submitted to the Tigard City. Council from the City Attorney on September 13, 2005 FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO COTS At the August 9, 2005, the City Council received testimony from various persons regarding four proposed annexations. The Council' allowed all parties until August 16 to submit additional written information. This document.sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. The Council received a request to reopen the record to allow a response to the post-hearing written submissions and allowed . until August 30 for persons to raise new issues relating to the new testimony, as provided by ORS 197.763(6)(c) and 197.763(7). This document sets out the City's findings on the legal"and factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. 1. After the Council allowed.additional time to raise new issues in response to new evidence submitted in the post-hearing written submissions, the City received two submissions, both a-mails sent by Julie Russell. Neither of those submissions raises new issues because all issues presented in her e~mails had been raised previously. Furthermore, neither of the submissions addresses new evidence submitted after the close of the oral hearing, but simply contain further argument on the same factual and legal issues she, and other opponents had raised in her earlier submissions.. Therefore, neither are proper submissions under ORS 197.763(6)(6) and 197:763(7). . Issues Raised By More Than One Person BB 2484, 2. Some people testified that House Bill 2484 (which has been enacted into law) either prevents the City from approving these annexations or demonstrates a legislative intent that a vote is required in any area to be annexed. House Bill 2484 is straightforward. It amends ORS 195.215, to make it clear that "annexation plans" under ORS Chapter 195 must be approved both by a majority of voters in the territory to be annexed and by 'a maj ority within the City.' A. HB 2484 does not apply to the annexations being considered by the City because HB 2484 applies only to annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195, and.the annexations before the City do not involve annexation'plans or ORS Chapter 195. . They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222; in particular ORS 222.125. H]3:, 2484, even if it were effective, would not apply to or affect these annexations. B. ' HB 2484 requires a separate vote in the area to ,be annexed for annexation plan annexations. However, requiring a vote in the area to be annexed would be a meaningless and futile act for areas in which there are no registered voters. There are no registered voters in the area to be annexed in Mountain View Estates annexation (ZCA2004-00003) or in the Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge annexation area (ZCA2005-00003). All of the registered voters in the' Arlington Heights 3' (ZCA20005-00001) and Wilson Ridge (ZCA 2005-00002) annexation have . consented to annexation. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS . , Page 'l BB 2722 3. HB 2722 (which has been enacted into law) withdraws the right .o£ cities to veto formation of new cities within three miles of their borders. Some opponents of annexation have argued thatthe intent of this bill is that the wishes of citizens in the affected areas are respected. A. BB 2722 does not apply to annexations. B. The affected areas are the areas to be annexed. Two types of persons have interests in the affected areas -those who own property and those who reside there. All owners of all properties to be annexed, and all voters in areas to be annexed have consented to the annexation.. No owner or resident in the areas to be annexed has indicated that they do not wish annexation. SB 877 4. SB 877 (which has.been enacted into law) has three major effects. One is that it limits the'ability of the City of Beaverton to annex "islands" of territory surrounded by that City. The second effect is that it requires amajority vote in the territory to be annexed by means of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195. The third effect is to prohibit the annexation of certain types of industrial property without the .consent of the owner. ~A. The provisions affecting only the City of Beaverton do not apply to the, City of Tigard. B. ; 'None of the proposed annexations are "island" annexations, "although an "island •is'created by the Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge annexation. C.. The annexations. are riot annexation plan annexations and are not subject to ORS . Chapter 195. D. The annexations-are not of industrial land-and are not the type of land that cannot be annexed without the consent, of the owner. The City has the consent of all owners of all land being annexed.- Voluntary or Coerced Consents 5.' .Some persons argued that the consents are not valid because they were coerced.. A.. , None of the people who provided consents stated they-were coerced. Those who testified that the consents were coerced did not specify, which persons were coerced.' Several persons representing property owners (Tom Weber, John _ Marquart, Sean Foushee, and Al Jeck) testified orally and/or in writing that consents'were voluntary and not coerced, The City Council finds that there is no . evidence that any specific individual was coerced into consenting to annexation. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 2 If 'any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is likely that the person would have appeared at the hearing. The Council finds the - testimony of Tom. Weber, John Marquart, Sean Foushee and Al Jeck to be more persuasive than the evidence of those claiming coercion because the named ' individuals were in a position to know whether the consents were voluntary or coerced and those who_ claimed that the consents were coerced did not have personal knowledge regarding•the consents.' The Council concludes that none of the consents were coerced. B. ORS 222.115 specifically authorizes contracts between a city and a landowner. relating to the extraterritorial provision of service in which the landowner. consents to annexation. The fact that the City requires a consent to annexation.in return for a contract for the extraterritorial provision of service is explicitly authorized by statute and does not constitute, coercion. The City provides planning and building inspection services extraterritorially, and may require consents'to annexation in order to provide those'services. C. ORS 222.175 recognizes that cities may.solicit consents to annexation. The fact : that a City seeks consents does not mean that they were coerced and does not invalidate the consents.'.. Consents To Annexation In Conneclion'With A Land Use Proceeding 6. Some opponents argued that some of the consents were required in connection with land use proceedings; and the City cannot require consents to annexation in order to process a land use application or as a condition. of a land use approval. A. For consents that were provided in connection with a land use approval, the time to challenge the City's authority to impose the. consents.was-during the land use process. In all but one of the cases, the land use process has been completed and the appeal period has passed. The requirement to provide 'a consent to annexation can no Ionger be challenged-in those cases. B. None of the persons who provided consents in connection.with land use proceedings have in any way challenged the consents or the requirement to provide the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified that they affirmatively desire that their properties be annexed to the City of Tigard. The applicant for the one land use process that has not been completed (Arlington Heights 3) has testified that the consent to annex that territory was voluntarily provided, and the City Council finds that•the consent in that case was voluntary., General Concern For The Bull Mountain Area. 7. Some opponents stated concerns related to the Bull Mountain area-in general and to their property. in unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain. Some of them argued that the proposed annexations should not proceed because' of the negative vote when the Bull . CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS --.ANNEXATIONS Page 3 . Mountain Annexation Plan was presented to the voters in the area to be annexed. A. The rights and interests of the owners and registered voters. in the areas proposed for annexation' are recognized by statute. The statutes do not create a legally protected interest for other persons. B. These annexations are-different from.the annexation plan presented to the voters. These annexations are property-specific annexations. under ORS Chapter 222. , The City and the annexation applicants are not requesting approval of an annexation plan. The rejection of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter:195 does not prevent later annexation of specific territory under a different annexation statute. "Double Majority" Vote 8.. Some opponents of the annexation argued that a "double majority" vote (a-separately tabulated vote in the City and in the area to be annexed) is` required. A. A "double majority" vote is or will be required for annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195: However, for annexations under ORS Chapter. 222, votes in the City are not required unless required by City charter or ordinance, and votes in the area to be annexed are not required if certain criteria are met. A' vote' in the area to be annexed is not required if all of the owners of all of the land and a majority of the electors in the area to be annexed, if any, consent to the annexation. ORS 222.125. The City Charter and Code do not require a vote within the City. B. As to each of the annexations, the City has received the consents of allof the owners of all of the land.: The City has also received the consents of all of the registered voters in each area that has registered voters. These annexations, are not annexation plan annexations under ORS 195, so the double majority ' requirement does not apply: The City is not required to hold a vote in any of the territories to be annexed, either because'there are no electors in the areas to be annexed or because the City has the consent of a majority of the electors in those, areas: "Islands"'OWninmorated Areas Surrounded By The City . 9: Some opponents' argued that these annexations create islands of unincorporated areas surrounded by the City. They also note that the City may later annex those islands without consent of owners,,or electors. A.. There is no legal prohibition on the creation of islands. _ The City, must consider'- annexation -applications that create islands under applicable standards. While the Council must consider whether the borders created by an annexation are so irregular as to. potentially cause problems with the provision of police services, CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page A the police department accepts these boundaries as being acceptable and not causing confusion for the provision of police services. The police department has provided written statements that they can provide services. The Council finds that the boundaries are not irregular to the extent they create confusion in the . provision of police services: B. The City does have the authority to annex islands, but'is awarethat the statutory authority to annex islands may be withdrawn, as it has, been withdrawn from one other city and from certain types of land. The possibility of a future annexation proceeding is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding whether to' approve these annexations. Regular Boundaries 10. Several persons commented that the annexations will not result in a regular boundary. A. ' The applicable standard.is Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1.2, which provides:` 'Approval of proposed anne:cations of land by.,the City shall be based on findings ' with respect to the following: a. The annexation eliminate an'existing "pocket" or "islaiud of unincorporated territory; or b. -The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that . makes it difficult for_the police in an emergency situation.,to determine whether the parcel is within'or outside,the City; c. The police department has commented on the annexation';; d. The land is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is contiguous to the City boundary; e. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1:1(a). B.. Policy 10 1.1 is complied with if either (1) subsection a or (2) subsecti ons b' through care met. These annexations comply with subsections b through e.' The annexation boundary-will not make it difficult for the police in emergency' -situations-to determine whether the parcelis within or without the City. The police department has commented on the annexation and stated that it is capable of providing service. All areas proposed for, annexation are within the Tigard. ,Urban Planning Area and are contiguous to the City. The services listed in 10.1.1(a) (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police and fire protection) can be provided to the areas to be annexed - the City and other responsible service providers have capacity to provide service to the areas to'be annexed. The . CITY'COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 5.-_ Council finds that the annexations provide for a reasonable extension of the City's boundaries. Individual Comments Testimony at Hearing Les and Ellen Godowski 11. The Godowskis argued that the annexations will also prevent certain areas from creating annexing ao King City. their own cities or A. The City has no obligation to refrain from annexing territory based on -the possibility that some other city may be incorporated in the area at some point in ...the future. B.. All applicable plans and intergovernmental agreements that address urbanization ' or the provision of urban services designate Tigard as the City that will annex . and/or provide :urban services to the areas being annexed. Charles Radley 12. Charles Radley argued that the annexations would violate Dolan v. City of Tigard and that there is no "essential nexus." Mr. Radley. also provided a written document. A. Dolan v. City of Tigard applies,only to, eases in which the, City exacts property from a property owner at the time of a, land use approval. Dolan does not apply to , annexations. 1 B. To the extent the Mr. Radley is arguing that the City could not require the property owners. to consent to annexation as a condition of land use approval, that challenge is too late. The land use approvals are final and cannot be collaterally challenged., Furthermore, Mr. Radley 'was not the applicant or a landowner in any . . of the land use cases and lacks standing to challenge conditions that have been ' accepted by the applicants. ' C.' The "essential nexus" requirement is imposed on exactions by the Nollan v..' California Coastal Commission-case. Like Dolan, the case applies only to exactions at the time of land use approvals, not to annexations. To the extent that Mr. Radley is challenging conditions'of approval in the previous land use cases, that challenge is too late, and Mr. Radley lacks standing to make the challenge. D. The document that Mr. Radley provided is an. ex* cerpt discussing the requirement, under. Rhode. Island law, that a building official must issue a building permit that meets the requirements of the building code. Rhode Island law concerning ' CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 6. building officials is not relevant to any issue regarding these annexations: If Mr. Radley•is 'attempting to argue.that the City cannot require a consent to annexation, any requirement regarding consents to annexations by'the.City are imposed in the context of a land use proceeding. The City has more authority' and more discretion in land use proceedings than in issuing building permits. Julie Russell 13. In addition to issues raised by others, Ms: Russell claimed that the.map included with the notice of annexation was inaccurate as to which areas are included within the City limits and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell. argued that the City's process violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1:1. and CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell stated dissatisfaction-with the proposed zoning. A. The maps provided with the notice were accurate. They, showed the location of the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by.- a shaded'yellow area. There is no requirement to provide a map with the notice of ' ....the annexation hearing. Even if there was some inaccuracy, the maps provided sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed and 'their relationship to the City. The City provided notice in compliance with all applicable requirements. In the event that some person may have failed to receive ' notice, failure of a person to receive notice does not invalidate the notice, which was.properly provided. B. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2. 1.1 provides: "The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportuhity to be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is not an approval standard or criterion for an annexation application. The City's land use regulations have been acknowledged, and those regulations provide the process, including citizen involvement; for considering land use applications. That process includes notice and a hearing, and the City provided notice and a hearing; as required by the CDC. Compliance with the add wledged regulations demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by the regulations. Citizens, including Ms. Russell, have had the opportunity to be involved in process. The process of necessity, works differently in a, quasi-judicial land use process than in a legislative process. , C. CDC 18.320.020 provides: 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards "A:. Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Chapter, 1-8.390 using standards -of approval contained in Subsection'B2 below. B. Approval Criteria. The decision to approve, approve with CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS. ; Page 7 modification,, or deny an application to annex property to the City " shall be based on the following criteria: ' 1. AH:services and facilities are available to the area and-have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed ' annexation area; and 2. The applicable comprehensiveplan policies and implementing ordinance:provisions have been satisfied. C. Assignment of comprehensive plan. and zoning designations: The comprehensive plan designation and,the zoning,designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the. City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation,. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with,,the,annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the, City shall convert the County`s comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City'designations which are the most similar. A zone change is required if the applicant requests a'comprehensive plan map and/or ' zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See' 1 Chapter 18.380). A .request far a'zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application.or after the annexation 'has been approved.' D..' Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations to City designations - which are most similar. The City used a ,Type IV approval process. The City has capacity, to provide all, required services "to the, area to.be'annexed, and the. applicable ' Comprehensive P1an.Policies including those in Chapter 10, have been satisfied. The properties being annexed already, have City comprehensive plan and zoning designations, that have been adopted and imposed by the,County. Ms. Russell" specifically argued that the City lacks. parks capacity in the area. However; the City has sufficient parks capacity throughout •the, City to provide service to -its residents; including residents in the areas being annexed. The services listed in the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer, storm sewer, streets, police.and fire protection, are-the essential services that must be available, aid those services will be available to the newly annexed areas., Ms. Russell- questioned the. adequacy. of the street system.` The City Council finds that'the street system is adequate to provide service-and will remain adequate." If the properties are not annexed, they,. could still be developed consistent with the County zoning, which is the same as City zoning, so whether the properties are annexed or not does not affect the V . ' impact on• the street, system: CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 8, l" D. The areas to be annexed all have existing City zones that were established' consistent. with Table 320.1. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable,Comniunity Development Code provisions. Scott Miller. 14. In addition to issues addressed in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section. of these findings, Mr. Miller stated a concern with an increase in taxes. Mr.. Miller also. argued .that the consents received by the City are, not consents. A. Mr. Miller does not own property being annexed. His property is outside the area proposed for annexation. His taxes will not-increase as a result of the annexation. The.property owners in the area to be annexed have consented to the annexation. Whether taxes may increase is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding an annexation, , r B. For each.of the annexations, the City has either the written consent of the property,- owners .or a petition from the property-owners to initiate the annexation. 'All are valid consents. Lisa Hamilton Treick 15.. In addition to issues address in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these findings, Ms, Hamilton Treik argued that Measure 37 gives. property. owners rights that are violated by these annexations.. ; . A. Ms. Hamilton Treik does not own property that will be annexed by. these annexations. All owners of property being annexed have consented to these annexations. The property owners or their representatives who testified expressly stated that they voluntarily consent to the annexations.. One of them, Tom Weber, stated that he actively'sought annexation to Tigard because of the. value it .brings to his property. Measure 37 is not an applicable standard or criterion for annexation: 16. Ms. Hamilton Treik also argued that the City has no authority to eonditioni land use approvals or acceptance of land use applications on a consent to annexation. - A. In addition to Findings 6 and 7, the various agreements with the County and other, ,..urban service providers, including the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement and Tigard Urban Service Agreement, anticipate that the City'will provide planning services and will ultimately annex Tigard's urban service area. Requiring annexation is not inconsistent with those agreements. Urban Service Agreement Section I.D provides that. the City.shall endeavor to annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed for annexation. Requiring annexation consents effectuates this provision of the Urban ' Service .Agieement. The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement gives Tigard all land use decision-making authority over the area to be'annexed. Land use authority CITY COUNCIL. FINDINGS-, ANNEXATIONS, Page 9 includes the authority to impose conditions. The City -has the authority to impose a condition of approval requiring consent to annexation when it receives a .land use application.for a property outside the City. Individual Comments - Post-Hearing Written Submissions ~ Julie Russell . .17. Ms. Russell again discussed general opposition to annexation in the Bull Mountain area, HB 2484,•SB 887, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1.and 101.2, and CDC 18.32 .020.. The above findings address those arguments. 18. Ms. Russell also argues that the zoning is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The areas have all been rezoned by the County and the zoning being applied is the zoning required by CDC 18:320: ' Furthermore, as demonstrated in the written testimony of John Marquart, there is little or no practical'difference between Washington County R-6 and Tigard R-7 zoning, as applied. 19. Ms: Russell argues that 'not everyone who was entitled to receive notice actually received notice. The City provided notice as required by applicable regulations. While it is possible that some persons did not receive notice, the City complies with the notice •requirements. 20. Ms. Russell complains about possible effects~on other service, providers.. The City has not received any negative comments from other service providers. 'All service providers in the area have agreed that the'area being annexed will be annexed to.Tigard; Services will be provided as agreed to in the Urban Services Agreements entered into by the City and other service providers. .21. Ms. Russell argues that the annexation will interfere with the, orderly. and economic provision of public facilities and services. However, her argument appears to be that services can be provided without annexation. That does not mean that annexation will. disrupt or interfere with service provision. The agreements between the service providers will ensure orderly and economic provision of services. 22'.. Ms. Russell argues that the Alberta Rider School property should not be annexed. None of her arguments relate to any applicable standard or criterion.. 23. Ms. Russell opposes the Summit Ridge annexation as noncontiguous.: The Summit Ridge area being annexed will be contiguous with.the City on annexation. 24. Ms. Russell objects to the Annexation of Arlington Heights 3 on the grounds that the annexation will cause'annexation to a homeowners association. Tliat argument does not -related to any applicable standard or criterion. Participation in a homeowner's association is a matter of contract between the parties and unrelated to a 'City's authority to annex. Ms Russell also argues that the City cannot annex only partof a subdivision. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 10 I f No applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation of part of a subdivision. Furthermore, Arlington. Heights 3 is a separate subdivision from Arlington Heights i and LaVelle and Marie Day 25.. The Days object to the annexation on the grounds that the annexation may interfere with ' efforts to annex to King City or to create a new city. This.argument does not relate to any applicable criterion or standard. None of the Days'. other arguments are based on applicable standards or criteria. Jackie and Claa Kisling 26. The Kislings raise issues related to iqB 2484 and HB 2722: Those bills are addressed in the above findings. Henry Kane ' . . - 27. 16. Kane makes arguments against island annexations. None of the annexations are island annexations. Lisa Hamilton-Treik and Tom Treik 28.: Ms. Hamilton-Treik and Mr. Treik oppose the process in which the hearings on four annexations were combined ascausing hardship on those who wish to appeal. Even if the hearings had not been combined, the hearings could have been, and most likely would have been held at the same meeting. Therefore, the'appeals would have all been due at the same time.' Combining the hearings allowed people to state their objections a single time so, as to avoid multiple repeated testimony. All persons were given a full opportunity to address any issues related to any of the four annexations. 29. They also object to the boundaries as being irregular and question the 'voluntariness of the. consents. These issues are addressed` above.. 30. They also, oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to Tigard's TIF accounts. That is not a relevant issue.and does,not relate to any applicable standard or crit6rioii., Philip.E. Decker 31.... Mr. Decker opposes the annexations as not being contiguous. No property being.annexed will.be separated from the City by any intervening unincorporated territory. The annexations are of contiguous property. 32. Mr. Decker argues that ORS 222.115 allows annexation contracts only'for contiguous parcels. ' ORS 222.115 does not require that property be contiguous at the time an annexation contract is signed. One purpose of ORS 222.115 is to allow properties that CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page. l l Y are not'contiguous to consent to annexation so that they can receive urban services immediately and be annexed later when intervening properties annex. The contiguity requirement applies only when the-mmexation becomes effective. 33. Mr. Decker argues that the areas being' annexed are irregularly shaped. The shape of the area being annexed is not an:issue: .34.- Mr. Decker argues that previous annexations were improper. The previous annexations. are final and have not been challenged. They cannot be collaterally attacked ,at this time. ; Comments In Support 35. ' After the hearing, the City received several written comments in support of the proposed annexations, including statements from- Sean Foushee, on behalf of the applicants for the Mountain View Estates, from'John Marquart on behalf of the applicant for the Wilson . Ridge annexation, and from Tom Weber, on behalf of the owners of the Arlington Heights.3 property, all of whom stated that the annexation applications were voluntary. Mr. Marquart and Mr. Weber addressed other issues, strongly supporting the annexations of their respective areas, ' O:WunilTigardwevisodaiinexa6onfindings08170S.doc CITY'COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 12 " CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, ORDINANCE NO.2605- AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 19.56 ACRES, APPROVING !ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL/SUMMIT RIDGE ANNEXATION (ZCA2005-00003), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT; WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(B) and 222.170 to initiate an annexation . , upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territoryproposed to be annexed and written consent from owners of more than half the.land in the territory proposed to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently lie within the boundary'of the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District; Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington, County Street Lighting, District #1, and -the Washington County Vector Control District, upon completion of the I . annexation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on August 9, 2005 to consider the annexation of 38 parcels and portions of 18 additional parcels of land consisting of a total of 19.56 acres and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District; Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County.Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, the City Council left the. record open for written submissions for an additional seven days after the hearing,on August 9, 2005 and allowed a further seven days on August 23, 2005 for submission of responses to new evidence submitted during that time, as provided by ORS 197.763(6)(c); and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Water District for certain debt obligations, however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the City, to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held.a public hearing on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington' County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222,524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's 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.2005-~ ZCA2005-00003 Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge Annexation. Page .1 of 3 WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning most closely confor Ming to the County zoning; and WHEREAS, the current zoning district is R-7, an existing City zone that has' been adopted by the County and the zoning after annexation would remain R-Tso that no zone change is necessary, and by annexation the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard goes into effect; 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 the written materials submitted after the hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE ,.THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Council adopts the staff report and the document entitled "Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance. with ORS Chapter 222" as findings. 1ri addition, Council adopts the document entitled "Findings in Response to Comments" as additional findings of fact. SECTION 2: The Tigard City. Council hereby annexes the parcels described in the attached REVISED Exhibit "A'! and shown in REVISED Exhibit "B" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard " Water District, the : Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs - Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be, ef fective 30 days after its passage by tie Council, signature by the . Mayor and posting by the.City Recorder. SECTION 4: City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation, includnig filing certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities.'' SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance Distriet;.,Waslungtoii-County Street Lighting District #1, and.the Washington County Vector *Control District shall be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2006. SECTION 7: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. ORDINANCE NO. 2005- ZCA2005-00003 Alberta Rider/Suinmit Ridge Annexation Page 2 of 3 j?ft M0*U.5! vote of all Council members present after being read by number and PASSED: BY ; 2005. title only, this 13= day of - Cathy Wheatley, City R' order L day of 2005. APPROVED: By Tigard City COMC-i1•this Craig irksen, Mayor Approved as to. form: ; Attorney Date ZCA2005-00003 Alberta•Riaer/SummitR dge Annexation ORDINANCI; NO. 2005-12- Page 3 of 3 zcQ20OS-00003 EXHIBIT A.: ALBERTA RIDER/SUMMIT RIDGE SUBDIVISION (Excluding Ms. Alberta Rider,s Life Tenancy Area)' ' A tract of land situated in the Section 9,' Township 2 South Range 1 West Willamette Meridian described as follows: Conunencing at a point northwest corner of the subdivision plat of Arlington Heights; thence N 01°.57' 48" E a distance of 13.03 feet; thence S 88° 04 30" W a distance of 625.20 feet to The True'point of Beginning of the Annexation being on the southerly. right-of--way of SW Bull Momitain Road; thence S 01° 56'56" W a distance of 426.22 feet; thence S 88° 56' 17" E a distance of'212.83 feet; thence S 02° 00' 00'.W a • distance of 274.61 feet; thence N 88°.49' 24" W a distance of 336.20 feet; thence S 01° 15' 49" W a distance of 475.68 feet; thence S 87° 59' 46" E a distance. of 303.50 feet; 'thence S 01 ° 15' 467W a distance of 561.57 feet; thence N.870 59' 46" W,a distance of 303.50 feet; thence'N 01915' 46"E a distance of 561.57; , thence N 87° 5946" W a distance of 846 feet to the easterly right-of-way of SW 133rd Ave; thence N 01 ° 33' 29" E, along said right-of-way, a distance.of 50.00 feet; thence S 87° 59' 46" E a distance of . 221.31 feet; thence N 01° 21' 36" E a distance of 140.04 feet; thence S. 87° 58'20" E a distance of 220.90 feet; thence N 01 ° 15' 49" E a distance of 1185.00 feet Ito the southerly right-of-way of SW. Bull MountainRoad thence .S 590 18' 32" E. along said, right-of-way," a distance of 433.01 feet; thence N 88°,04' 30" E, along said right-of-way, a distance of 158.32 feet to the point of beginning. , Excepting Commencing at a point northwest corner of the subdivision plat of Arlington Heights; ' thence N O1° 57' 48" E a distance',of 13.03 feet; thence S: 88° 04' 30" W; along said:.' soutlierly right-of-Way. a distance of,737.52 feet to The•.True.point of Beginning of the exception being on the southerly right of way of SW Bull Mouuntain Road; thence S 88° 04' 30" W, along said southerly right of way, a' distance of 46.00 feet to and angle point . in said southerly right of way;, thence N 59'.l 8' 32" W, along *said southerly right-of- way, a distance of 231 feet; thence leaving said southerly right-of.--way, S 05°.34' 56" W a distance of 277 feet; thence N 85° 46° 31" E a distance of 27,7 feet; thence N;0111 55' 30" W a distance of 139 feet to the point of beginning.. . 11emVoherhlernea 2sl00acUd 21001900,doc ' t 2S 1 09AC 2S 1 09AC D ,ntnw. 'i,. dLU': ti'{Iq h' • • rp . ~'~•Jli12.:~~ __•'.r•.•''.j.i', Y•.• '.Nr,ety „ d4j1' 7:.9` •1~~ •~:~:il"_ ' '~a:n'.l~,ri:'~.f. ~n.~'.°R:w.3,',; F`:• A''.jj :`m 'T': ;'-f . 'isy4 1• a/ aio:u .'~'i ,aael~~s,A m .'r+-.••~. Is~^ rr 1,44,;;k Y Y' Z ! 1 • '••-.f'il5' vt r'.• ' t ea . ' ~11fY' '.SVid . 14-....,~ le. =a db IIIIAyyl ya .9 ',N y,; .•f }€p •'RI pq '.~y ~l-• '`•t~..•'' O. , 'Ai, AIA1iT? ` _ • , ralw; y''.~''. r`:;a~ +•.,•f : 1 .I'•^ 'Y. i'°° Q'` r ; W v :y .'1 ~ "M~rllq'r,li It ~:~•.~Ae~:j :1••''•.;''s' .~r.},i ~ yN /i, !`J ~ ,.w,,:r~:.q.'•." . '•i ~,"•.,i. prw e. y.•I, yix' !~I=i-J~J••.~; 4N ~.M4}r'.~ - M C3 NM.. I ~Pi :~•.'7.•'1,'r ^ ~ ~J ~ •'.~:~2°=L~' • ~ "'+°i1 'ii ~ . ~7•~•':+ •ti,: J d • ra 1 \'~'•rrB ,''r:~. ' rr ~ :K,.~P +.a . !7 rtx' Nor ' .,1~ rnl.~tr : t c 6 I rr Alp : ' I' _u- ' ~a T 1 ' WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON 0 {EI to AQ, • •r M1 - Sw ry+JwexwaM.sww'••!..'.!. sr••,• M I+ SW114NE714SECTION 09 TZSR1WW.N1. (A N . r`'• 3I - "'Q y>J' • • r.. j v C9t ~wrw~ ••.'~4 :rr . SCALE 1• + 100• - .1.1 LI 0A.K i N~4iN :i ll si°w 3 P „ f~ d u''~~.HI H '~1" '.s :~?..9 • Ap::~l'• of -J„~„ w 3 ~y SNf91ADSV 060 a. i ff W9 ^ e~ -r} : noa i"•,~ r7: i` i :J ~~;'o ;ie. WAC ~~a III j , w•_ ; t is . CC a:°: .g a uo ~K. =woo `~4. ~Q~ n ~j•AY:. 'a,.1' to iz iii: 1~ . 6B~ talK - M Q vAlL ~ ql ~M~,1~-r4 y am. i~ a :4 1 , 071-1 R ' , ia; .x Aid 2 -0 .1:. ~9! 7 w.a.a ar. ' • •i.m~10"O.1 ,s•Ni•giiiil • FORAOn1110NAL MAPS YlSfI'OfNi WEBS179A7 a, O • .-._ii_ ` IT 'WA`CN1.q~ :iq:•, 7a:: NsxcP.waahlPGtwraaa , w'Q7~ ~``'o-s •i:ndy;y r' :°:,r. yxj MK ~fPC Y1. - ~..r .1fw {I- ew g~ l s' :99i;; •'$A' . • •-`A;: AA,.. L~ O _ -•,.'a0.%ri f rA .71u S 1100 Ci s7•~'~~j y~?J SL` ......Gt♦~.(~~w ~:U~~,~a~.a$~.w~ ~t1 /O3 :t••"~ - 1 `+s"_• fac'.......d_... nu~'-w,w - Amm 70 131 :a:' $o.'. HA'j: AC ti:fp.•w , WI / , ~ 3g41p '~9i - • wHwaW ^ Ty{•T . ~ r'• ' •J ' - A". i5E~ 71 ffmi a' •i'_ i+w•S 700 _ Q- nm :}'v'_ A , \ 7 •all.. 14 1K i. Q A7K i • • ..B ' ' p~!.•..! ice- wsw.u ._r N ---w~.- leoo a i. usAc . k 23`7$ - ar~er ,~I ps ;,;JS ~ssi° r ° + - G yf nQ x4Y2an •kln70ry ,pa -sue: r.w SW RHbTTa~ :.a1• - - ,coo ~ 1:77''•. Ao wn 2~i. - L"At j S~owS-c.rr0. d~fwk5 S-GoURT e-~CC, w Irrr~~~- -,i I Q#g ,.au 1~ .'•sl•. . r;. - - UjAg ..rUS a ila A.K Y ..LTn ♦ __,ir' •IL• YY 'rM L S O7 Ch7 •1 . 9ca CMOGRAPhY 1~171 1T1hh1aa``.. IwiP _,g} 11~r 1100 1 00 0 n s~ 8~`'• tcaaa wf!' 1( aax of- . mar DATE; November R 30, 26 FOR ASSES$MEN7 PURPgSES ONLY- pq NNO~Tqq • moo ELY N . . Lek r ~ • . •i' /uPrpr t.ah W. U of aP'~ • i .e_''~y~111 r a' r ~ noP ..mr•..a•.a'.,p.«v.ww~.r...,eo.ma l • ~,ti .a '`f# t} ! I ur+e '•I P„aeePm.~.~,erens,. rnu. mP.a Pn gpaP4.ae.•s _ .per a'te' ' i~ • ':i - .r... ;-~,•w~'°~A--'•-n_ ~ ' 'Y, ' ' P'• '1 r 71GARD r % • - •b rM 0 AC - ~ t•• ..•iti•:. •>s• 'd ~•09AC 2$ 1 .9 2S1 09AD 2S 3 09AD ~rr•~ M4 • f4•*•4,' •.J'•u r : f.t.1 `iti''~%':t ` It • f r 4 ,'',,,r,, ; • rr :i. r ' lr~,;.,•,• Ir, 'r: ?.7 , ,r•+ : •u. ..I,; "IC r,;', N tl` L, r, W : x K',' r:• i ;ti y. . `;ayl0; /~4j,1+ `tHS4l : 1r' y1~~ 14.r •a• d'` . ' 1R7~i~w°1 r''•,,L ':1'•' .y t.. •f T• 'a`'. , r. ,r ° :!,t,.,, . rri ~ ':i•'tt; iy,"p2 :~.y, `':i`' '*,:x.i j. •y• y,r'n >:,''i' J,,~ 1^. rr', ~ri~ tc, •'~r J. ~ l:' 44 i :'1 ~ ' ~1;' i, J, Y, •ri t,:: ~•~:1 ~•;1~ .1, ';fir yt;`• 1, 1;!'••. m ! j• s'%,~'a •y" , uo,a ` •,y , •,u' + 'r' w0 ' ' ; ' ^I, t.; , ; ! ' ~r!? Wjl+, :ri}'}/,' ~;t: ;t 's' ,,t/7` i+~S '•.f:y..i.'`~~ ` mss: -+;'a...'+''~••`•''' ,r r:.rr,: X 'If. :1iia1: s:li ` Q w 'r' r jitr• ~'-i` , 4+= .~y ; .-,r, ,,•'•y r 1°' Q 1t00~ • .r:'•y.' t,•'•r 'u .W~9r; a t.,:r ~..'jJ'•Y 'h,ieiH: a'' ~~+t :y yam. ,.rte j rTil biA ,a •.•r,'t`f, •^J~ st to LLB ~ TiOO ' ~ tl iieo ; i •h'" '~x;; • t~1f: t. •n,t,' v r~i s, ;G', •vr 41 C • y r = 7{ 'itx+wlvKetiiYry9yrSAw~i++rtwH+iiav+ilnv:~' ~;,•1'igEt;~~ :yip SW C. ~yV,~:!;`'a;•'. -:a 1100?`+t uo TM f loo :i •t ~r ~i`i ri-~y:` 'ri1''f,''i, i > { eoo - _ :::;r,~ 4;' ' !{I!r ,a~K. ,jN.•y tI(•• 7100 •,;•~;y fi. :x fl b r uw , f A7iA ,.x '.h.',%`,,''r!~b"i: :•i •r :Yrif•,J 4.', t!t^d ft :SriJ'1 + • 1 ii•eR, 14 1300 W k . V t ••.~r~~ ,i. ,u •,h'+'tr i . '.'..~A!?; •;:1 , + ~ . iooo , i sloo sl It J : I.r:i, ;r'r rile,: ;y •t - 'i; mN _ ,`:`,I~'•,ty,,:yt,,,~..~,J;, a~ ~ f is 'f'~°. ~ .auLi~ ~ w,. {r::v..;'!.ayie,'„~' ;t' . • ~1` - 17Q .~4A : \'r',t ita0 if . ~"t i!7 . ++~?fj1Y\m7 1 } ;~;ti i :yr' 7+00 l 1a to " 1100 eo Is~° Too au COUNTY OREQON st O i s• A. r :r •i~r, ;ti„,;• WASHINGTON CO 8T2SA9WW.M. s va i .nw \.~~y, J. b[iMN1 }I . \ ^t: i:r 11, m x r, , 1119ECTIONO Tao 1Lk 1200 7 ; " "7•+'~~M,: , . S1+ALE 1' 100' 170p •a~~•-.- 5 Y'r- ~•~~ti9'~,; ,;r;'' u~, ,17a0 1 M, 711 # 11 y) - 71oa-y~'~ u n•r ~'a .y, 'Y~ ?'S47. n P is •r>,, y'. 1 J 4y poo uoa~ wr+w W uio r,~ '~,•'it •''•'r J t'':St: „Vr,; , i~ N0 1~^ Z ' l7te ~!'•y.i; •,s'` %Lv SW 6IRDSVIEW 1 ladmwvw\u i wAllrn l to Tug'{:t 'ti~'' yc X 1. ai c) 1 wwi•. , b Q ~r 'N,' 'i a rird+: r:.~ p; ~ ,'r. yYi 't;, 7100 3a i. 1 w 100 J, •.;+!L;~'•:'`;+:; ;it; }t ~ 3341 N I 6.74 lo ^t` , •~~a :1 71116 ~3 O 4i1 ti 411 4r f . r. r,, ~;r•,,~ 0000 T 1T 1100 i • 11 wJl~Ilr N ~'I ~r.a.'': y; 'a tooo A N 'S !Y, r, 7s '6 • I' ut,e 2ppp'D66 w ; ,t r 'rr ~;t' :ti too 2100 3. ~ ~ ~ {ftOO. 3 ~ t 'a, a, 'ti, 6 ~ ^')t,•.\J'•n•,.y:,it•', ~ .e r 1{ ~ _ ~t7►L 'iI„N . ~'ti./~r~,t 5y~ ` . 'tih 't 'i \ , 2100 N , (J7 •.r.r at 2100 7700 ~ uruM _ s nsrr oun wee • 70 1/ ,ar+mn SW 1 loft,{ODiTf071A1Wr1P ' 'r "b,~ ,rr`'4r •~'r;. `r'~ } h , ~ . \vtpeN\\vggq\\~ , ~ vvv\lvvv\H. armwts~+. L7eAi L Y "I. 7,L ' 0 `$~~v\vNNU \RN\NV ~,I rw . 1. ;K ;i Ra,Y~~t 'c~sruhin t` 1••'. t\q\N1\N\ qU .N /'.I I•'1~U,NWIIMMy /W 'ryi''•t ti . ' , w. +\e ti. Ild"r. 1; jt'eR°rY ' u X. L~~ •r' •r, 'r prtwn,wrlwn 00 :',a,'v ;•i: i'Sr~: •4'~r ''tr• •r::ii LMk ri r' tto i 7100 ~~r .r, ' ••:"1'"K"' nrx* 1700 17 1100 f000'1 7 f y';t,~%13 {1, i. r•, - _ :ti,',Y. rbl,raMWW1 _ ~ 1 l t.•.~, r'i• r• I, Jl 1::.)j /;ry,, •pti. il,,'e ~ . • r. K :i';i ' •yr J'4,: :r ' 'r; - - rua -.w / r % i ::.Y Ur :•t' 1: , ,',i u;~ ,'r."A',• C WINTERVIEW DRIVE.. 1 r ;~'.Y`:.~; ~I; rJ,u, . tw n, ,~Yy.aW Y. •:%+•'A y SW' i'1:,\•,{Y:,n :':i: '•t, ;X l;:t it .•iQ&I'r yilK' - ,.4• r,; r 1-1` ' -lifi- w % q " t' j a, 1!, s f -::.il I:.r''t t1_•,e. rti.;rt : : •rr,Y,• 4 X. i:''•y:':•; ',6, :Y'•'i:%?: 1S ; - 1f00 1100 1700 1fa0 app 7000 7 :rf'~+~ 11101 f li + i 'ri:+";r `•7a r;r ' '4 r~r' ~J',h'u~r 1100 f l 11 11 Sj O7 7 .,~:i /;Iyr~ir.`,. t,' ~'~7'.~` :1CC• ''t:• - •4&4 • _ r) gg r ,,la,'g,.,, y . t•' `l ~,Vy,' VYk~. :Y~~`t~o: !!:'r'r -i 'r. _ JS I V J✓ :Y; '•t .(i ~.t.ciwlf:: ttk'r 1f7 • \ r „t, - /1'! .y':": ~Y' '`irpu•' .~%t ,;r;l; •DN6/01d 77011011 FOR U101AD - w~''''~';t ~',Ti ,ti • ri" it00 f146. R 1100 it • . 1; 'r., • • t K/l•1cDIJ+06 005101,. ' 'I, 21171 11 - •1100 6 r~ ,roatrolnnavvawt it ~ ~ 7sa6 "r. p°dm x714 ~ ':1; 1100 1100 % t{ ~ ra+x 23,78 l ' • '1 " , 1000 ••••:s'•'Y - •0700, 11 1000 t!';^;ti%;• •P :Y 1' ~t..r,,/ti• Iyu 09 'r''•'r',• ,+:"'r: `'r '':1; ;r!' I - CO(~R)~'bjRly tti'tt; •'•:n• X. .y•'+,,'' - ` r • ; `;y ~r: ` ` r. ':i - - , k f r 1 'r ~'yi r; , %`•tj :'•y'•• , - • 7. P,t I Mru„r I 1100 r.,t • C }t '`if • :i r 1100 flao > ":r ; T~'', , Y.."', A 8.5 a31 $ S'm a n • 9 is 's" t~•. ' - 1106 ~ •4 4 % '~u~'r.' :•;`;~l`ti,,,•tx;'9. - '1: ;cam::•.,x;.,•,,~ I ! _ 13 ~yt'., ; 6 17 0 t..%.J?'•{ •r,' ;:~',r: - • , ' n I _ 1,00 Q' fw0 i, r ':r" r:'d' • ~ tt T ® it cm 9 8 0, n ^ •=i;'tl`: I ~ 70 'r ~ '(~~e` fico ?f , ...K.~ . •t:;~u;' •:'~;'•y;r••• MOT BATE; Julyg0~9r 2002 r, r ..i•;~'.,r;,,. .'":C ~.kf~ FOONLySESpSpM EA'113SES - ~ •r.ti. 'a;`. ~ 1 S * - 12`0 ';v't, W • ; ,a: ; l" .~"`4'•,• ~ 11 f •A 07 L N :r:'y:~rti •;Y' IC Y~ ' naa a' 7 •.d't v.dan+1~ ' '~n'•r.'`':1; w.,r•~tr.+rwaerrawrnws~w a i y' ~'r, ad 1000 11 x~'.:, 14 J. , r ,r,t. t{ ♦ :i aremNyrq,y endagM t • ' r.,« r r 7i ' ~ 'r r Q I n'A't i"A'e;e0.t"'+.,'71hNr"' ,Yn aanr.+•a Nrpe n,0 •j '•r \ ~ R 210 ~ V 'n ~ it ~:ti uw.i'•~'t~' .'°,wi"';. °~°IP^P'•Or drnmenw+rl - y! 'v'•u ~'il `':i ''1:"u' "',•"f: ,;'J,'' `'y: ti ..:r~ .i ::fi•;ti IIOO '0 ~q t.4• •.XY.:, ;r .:r, f,' i- :ti,•iF•' •,'J,, :1 is ..r+,r ''ir' v'';,; if •,MC1.~.•,~ •:~q,. •'Y. ~~'t J•• 1t" r•' 1••. `':1 .t,' ~ ':i'.y'" ' ~ t ~ .l7' , +I .':t r •':l 't1 Y. .,',;r; X'. w;. _ ~Y;i,' ~''t~+'. 'II„L^'" "Z7, 7.., y,~'• ':C':t' r, t. 11GAnRD n '!~;r •a:'•' 'n' 'ti •`l: :i :1 •'Y' .7!•• A' n w nn r+'-rti ':i' 'F ~'n •r:` .r. `t:, r:`' ,I., t 4J, ;}\('j3, f reiSP .lt,:t: ':t :y;,~.', .:ti c ,i•,,` 1~sa~r', x ~ ' : J. `'•li'•f•,.: ••Y`. .'r;.'yl 'V ,':1 e~ ..~'•e. a~~~~.,:•'':.'~.'+.'• •i • r. r ~ w.c .r'`'r.~'r.',~ •:yt.`• •it.. •:It:.. t~ ..uWJ - - 1. • t 2S ! 0 2S 1 09DB ti +.h, 'x, ~•:J !t ,r^ :1 ~•1,.` 1:•`;1`'' •;i VJ :!•''11'x' ',11, kf~'` '~.~'.I ,1,: .5,.'%:. :,*.t M '%1 •r~.,r~. '.',i'S ~7..)i~'lf "~i',••ji °'t'1'1,'"1' •.7, '✓1; y'•' }r.. ^'1:•,;I. 1 :i:: Ii y, ,r' i • ,.ti W 2:. .K 'rl J•':i '.,i + . • . ,.~,i..11, r . 1. ti' : I'' '•,1 /~•'.r.. i•' a IF Fw la. ,di.;,i I';: :r;~:•1 ~iC •o. SyP'%: . .4:' ,li, ,.J:. .t, M': 'r 5l ':i^•' ;t• ~•'~:''ti + ~ji; ~ a° .1ra'y'i •.1 :1 ~'yi''la/`: f'•' 'ti' •.i r. .:;~,:t ors 's N;', rr y by .,r: r'?'~. '~,fKn- /5~~ 1R''~; '•;fw, f '1: '•i '•✓'•'~,•%S,: w •.%t.•.a:,;h; 1'ti ,1:, :l;,•. ~''':i t, yy '•.ti `•r%' ;l. ;r 1• .r.•.,. •'yt ✓;.i , coal 11r} K• •r. =,'"•r 'SI' ,'It'•!:~ % ;14;,'!i ,~r( r.4.'.I`!`r✓f, .ty .✓If,,'t'y. '!:i''•r: •'1 ` ' 't t[1 1 • •:Y ;i! • 1• y , r Y' ,SI, '.Y il;' ,Y. • ':7;`.V, ,k H. 1. •.r. r a d \ ' S, i . J, V' 'd%':1 ;1;~••:a~•' •%1:~` ? ,a `',:''r ,It ' ~5 ';II• • ;Sf ' n ~ ' J ;:1i `r: . .t ,t,r .Lft. .l.',i 1' • u ,FI;%~•'a; '1}'•. ~1 • ' ,'`'ti ;i .,r; .1f'iW:. .pI,K,.r '1i',•,• ' : •.r.''~' : 1 'F1'.y.•[ ',1x ,n':,,' . .Y 1f; ,,;,:'1'+' ✓ r '1,4r 'r~•. 7• 1. •~t. a r ~.r., •.4::%, :t;,;11.;,. ,.1, • 4,1,:i l:` :1::,,:•, i 1 '•:Y % . :1, •li :'i'' :ti, 1 \ ~ ~:u. • , ~ If:~,t' •7' , • r' • .T - ^:!r .•Yy:. ~ f Q, • • • •.IF' ,r y .r..: u,•;r,' ; ' ~ • a/~o' _•~o •1 1 ~ • t•. ~j , •r 1{i + rv r:,.5:!~ .'at`;~r~ r; !~M; j Wi ~ ,it''' •'u'.,i¢} r , w ; i h;`l:i ; 1, Gt ; tiYx' 'r'•'~' IJ:~'~ ni ~ rtiv u :i.r~'W %:•J 700 0000 u 1 u 11 7 'r4Jx'~` ' Lr~• X. -N - :v, • - a i s4 u) ex'.:: ~ fj'ir .I_m'f: ,rti i:t'^ •.',;a. ~,ti~. 111•. d •%,E:v,•-~-.: pp. r/ aa~ a la ~ ark 't ww.; • ,•,r * ri,w IL au+a p .t' . 1 1.:, V:t, S ZE EST Y x ' y' ;~;r: {y ; WASHfNGTON COUNTY 6REGON %'y°;;j%::: O. ir:• N0 + ~ p ~ •NW11494114 8ECT11l R1 W W.M. ~ ^ u Y g .Q J J00 /00 71 Ja0p ,~•y,=+4C'` \'~pt.¢,; ; SCALE V - 100' , x., I 30 ,r•.,, 1}y~,r ./•••,•':1~• 1b0 +0:~l,re •1 ;h - rpm 1 ,•\SW r SUMMIT 1080 "1 409 K W. am k •:r' f. 11Y ';1' c» - r,' •;it, MA ADMIXI LAl YIiIJ•OUR-WEBSITIll cr) 10 " y, O •'!i ;c' ' r `;r.;~'n h' r,'~r,_;: www."w!2hkjQf4nor.u° 23* d 0 • ''1r; a ! s'.,.I', t,u c, ;1 1 > its . s 1._r... f all O >U , r,rg01 ! ¢ ''x;`'t; ,n ; i .e.,;~:/~..=s. ' s f~ti . ,;x'r. !'J',1^ A It,`%S 111JC . . Iw " 'It; ;1,;•:Y; ,>t; f •\;i 'ti li r • i / ' 1tUx - (`f~( Y ~!:.1 ••,i - •r.' ::?~?9.FC ,.r: ,~i.*F . ; %.$oY, BQ'~i; 'sFltc 5 i try m .A 1 ✓..,1, 'r V • 'rdar'u''.•: .h 1s;rr,';r,;~',!'f','''~':'';:ti ~ uuv , :.r;; rte%:~ uoo. tttlo uoa f•,. , Y ,1' ;r'''te; r , .,.y.. - I Lg16 JAI AS •0.a.JK au,~o r x;:'i;cx~;. :n;:a;•;':,~ ,u ' 1'r\,,,y~. v; Y .r,Df;,. $4 A 'N .11; •,.1: ,il, if ,Y' a~° ~y _ - . •Ii'f~r.,l ti.Y.f(1 ..~T../II /•~ILI, ' • - ~ - ~'1 n'r:~a/, . •r.~, `'r ':'i.~r..r w Y'u'i r r nor' !i ;y ' ;:t, . it ' a,., ,'r :,r •,t . wu..rx• . ✓ • YIMI 't. n; %'•u J . %::w: ;u, v CdAodonFOn 28sDlog 'I 9 ':t,~ ti•sc~1s :,,~r,.~,~•A - ' all too • ' %►a,, awoaar IIOO 'ti t• ;J i' ; ..:f >f'r a uau w tab ;x; \ ;{``n :t .?At I I' :It; : ! + %Aa ap r.w+~..~~ r. b••' . ' , ?i; ;Y. . • ...t 1;',1. 7:, "ry1 1. '.:':..1i,',\;'i A, :1, :'1• ;F=''' .t:; •:1; ;1:; ;1I, 1 ~ • '7l ~ •il, ;7j =,'h 14; . x X, r. ; a s -It, :•:.u r,; } ✓;'':1: ?y ~'..,:'`r:u:: 'r:'Xf ~ 1:, , r; . 'r"~i,;':\~:i, ; A S i S VPD ~ V1 Q t ~•31 6 j ',~f. '''#":;'J' ':y' u•'Fe; :'l', '7: •;1';':i •'N' ':A, . ~•\ar, n :.lf , . .~,F„r.i•:~, i~,:6r t, , ,Y::,1. . ' y M. "I. :I - :;-'n ::'`'x'`}: 't : ~ . :t,•':1; 'It' • ~'n'''r: ~•':1"t..lt,'~•'+';iC~.K.:'~ , . T C1 )Z of 1 4 Fl .4~ •.r •t: .1• ..'.1t'.:y. nedi E'''t"'aRwt ...r i Y,' ' PLOT DAM January 13, 7005 • ,cf~.: ?"pe'g',: -1'h.l:.h;•;--+,. • ;r: ,1:•,. :•J~~;..:u. ;{i.•. .,,:.,t'•.,i•. •'•:r; ;v'; i Si 1v.•t}rahYYr•iv,rl. ,F„ u:., .;ri, S FODNLSESSSDM N uhR OSF.S ~,1 :u : i . •r. , "'u ' " j:, ri Y..rti.'*.:~, ; .n : r : ;f`W. µf::;''; : 1t• ;x, h, y :i rt f; i- /ti w rti ' ' k OIHEA S ON ':i' :ti':ti 'r,'^ 'Y ;Y ;/;•;l{ 11, ,k ;It;`' • •k. •;,JS , 11; .K• . `'R ,,•t :w - .i . .x' .%4 ' .n:• . n v:.N;~:N, ;r,~ .v, it; a r 4. •lf .u~,}:''a:,.~t., • , .,t r%a,..ar~wa.rwevn.avr..w..++rwa 1r•{'rtiW r , .h ,i ;it, 7. •:J .1, ! . r • • j'. , r 1,,` ,wno/rr.a..aw myanemo•eerizgmNm,oou .;;:',.X,X`:1:'7:x• I! 1 ,:I; A; `'ii it ' 'li` i1/`.':. i' \ 'r ',:''F[ ~i .1•.•, .d.; l,% •.ti;. .~%„H ;ti';'t. 0lnnfptpq'tXmQitIt MNNOr+WtMNV'Vtr•rY ;\tom: .it. 'rtr . .r; : ,.Y' s4: ";K, l~r. :t gpm.trio.sa,Mn.rw .1, :C : r. '.:I.:t:,, •:1:~,',:' ;tl;` ';P v'•;r ~•':1'' eC ~1;"~'.-""fit; ,•f. •;v;' rP 'rJ ~'r.'';v '✓,.a ~~4:•.if fr,' _ _ •1; i;_ 7 .1, ro S:':\'~ 'r: +C ~;,i r;•;1:~~: ':r r.•:'..t:J:. ,V„ ,1; r.~..:, r,"Y ~7;'';.i `'r.' ~'Y,~' :1~ ;:t \ ~Y, f. 1 ,%:I':1, Y, f .•,;:y.,~,~,.~,.,7~'\.t'j1~ .•:1• ,ti ,I., ;il - \ /'`.nl•.~i:.K. %'h r.Y; ~r'• y, q~ ;n': .:ll • 1.,, ':.Y' ;.f 1.:x' t•.•'f~•:ti S; 'i`' V 1{':t;';~~' .K ~i?";. ;il st, ,1{ .l'• l ^'•y:'• '\:••'N' ~r. • Il S 7:•`'li''Y ~,~Y. •;1' ~'n ,r~ ,H ':r;',~ r. 11 ,N;~'7 ~•:V,r~ '/.•:It; `'ll,' 1 ~ % ~%,';r':1 A:1; 1. .1i 1', .`'1 1' ~ .n. • '1'\.11 . ' nc 4 i5ri1-,o - ` 2S 1 09DA 25 1 090A ''rt _.,1 .`.:ti,lr •I~r. ,'ir, r''.4,\.a:.,.• .iS••" r - .s r• 1 1 1 W .f ' r~ • •,4: V' V I' •300'. J` , f;:~t; ~~1;. ;t.:, %f'.' ':r'''L''•',:'''i:''•Y.'.r.• 'I; ''~N!;! 37 •i ' i J t:~. M. `{y+f; 1 ,,tiV •'',`Y'•,•''''. 1800 pp .k nC' "'r''wtak' 1' r +Md'• •i 1.~, . a ,,r.,. .F,. :n i,:a' • '1: r_ C ~ ~ ~ ;~.~.1~,.,,~.,,,. ~'(ir, r Ia (L uitosw ':4 is}'rr; 'r'_.r. '•;•;:~t. :r m 'IT •,ti :/s;'n~Y: ••R~~~.3• T100 •61^a•0 ( •w •r Fl"Em", ti 1~ 13 400 71 t800 11 HAZELCREST 71 ltd M ioo I +~y.w~ 1'MMEAV t 40 • • y. ;JNi.• ; . ti; rarV ' . . ,!aw,r r.. r'."6 .nl. j~ 1 AS V..3+, ~h. s 11 %~'4 r ; ' •,.f •rti ,i.. t 1'~a°1 1 4400 i 7400 0100 W /ooo e- ~G n .k71 T/ n i u .37 e ar>:, . ` 'l..• h/1T ' WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON WASHINGTON »7390 ri 1300 1100 too0 u NVI STS'r,~i''''' 't 4. NF1188E114SEDTIONOBT2SR7WW.M. r i i 7000 am 17 4e u IOO i ;:•'1:' ::r 'r• SCALE V - 100' 47 43 36 1 _ ~~•••:i'•y; 700 ':\'•',•i na0 p1334 i I,4a' `+n a Ik1yp a lr _ 3 A F' :s 'J•~ ' aiva 3 N00 /101 ',u''e•,•,'' y,Tyl+.. J'~,~n 41t w.,~•li 77 ASfoR`J•, '•i' {r~,J}: :.r {{II,,''e' r• .*a['' ' yy SUMMIT • ; Y r.. X :00 S 3 RIDGE t STREET: TMC7 k:::r / • 2100 \ •'~ti:.V r.• t ~,t, , a. ~•••~.•,4:' ••y..~, 1 3 poo 1700 100 1 40 W ~7 ';h' ~J• 61 13. > ' ':t~ :Ir• {400 ~ ~ 1•: 1 y~ ::.,r:i~ 3ap0 ~ p • 31 - •:r: ;.;'•~1r1i04:::i.:, 'r O J:. .'1, ,F`•.4x 3700 .r';.•r -•r •'1 • ''r , r r X ^r I fO11AO01T1oNALkArs YlS7TOUA WE83f1lAT • 43 `•'i i ':r;' ':i • r 00 - • • 'Wlew,oO.IVS+Dk1o100•aw F.~ w 78 rl~::;. ` ~Yyy\t~ ~;r;:i; 3 C) . •':r'•' '1!' 8100 `.ti^. _ - a0• ^ 3100 ~J ie 1vr 'a t~ - .1.:•%9~M:r !.i4 %rXA::;. - a " % Q r 0000: :~~d55•!' • • ~ _ •ti•t • 1117 ••r• 3 Tom .n '•:1' •;tl ; rr:'>, fl r J I:J r' u ? ':1" • a:,' _.~},,.9t3,f. •i~~r t;S~7rC• d ~•I:u~►L:•t"'' - - . ~ - _ - ''ti, fti ,a 1 :r 0100 to - - ~..,:`:r%~ r'r'':I:, ` ; :':r - a i' :i :1 1 Ilr 'mow. '•,t• ir.'1 'J"6~ 1' L r DA %Y - 3200 ^ a W a: tt 1700 r,r, •1 ':i' r; ''",:~:1• .:1 711000 1 14 1 - •:r". •1: ''r' ':i• i ;'i '•r. •r., w W 1 _ N. 0100 • 4400 y:' r' n Cl a r% CIONIa0T1:00tIFor 2Sf090A r. 'r 300' ' - " :r• 'r•,:•t' : ';1i 41120 J. 3100 i 11 '1 Jr• •1. f.-Ji te.l "^!'T _ 13 4400i ' ; ,•f• . '•r: ':r .ti.~: ~i:' • ti 'r, 3700 w 71• f.•,. .r.•.• 3:.'"'F ',•~1} .;f,r. 'rt ' .:i` ~•ti u : a1t--..-•1=d7-+-' 3.r::2,'r:"'•:.~.;. - 3300 1 u. Ia1~°taxt t`r'}: PolbPer - .'r.jw"^.~ •.t •••y'' :i'•~JI Wlle 3110 ,4,:~• 3100 / ' * a1~ e+~r : ..r * r,• ^...~,/•4, .k ~1 S S ff9 S 5 PY1. ~Y P1 Q - •,t' - u I 4200 30 tu'''ii • Y'•r.'•:i ' ;o- • .y r :l 11• is ••:i / T . , - .,J, " 17NIR Y 1 a ••r4-4: k%i •rf r ' ' IWs'.' :r rr r ;r. •:f • Y ®-t[ ® d O n ti J h 0100 ''I• :5 ~.I. , . •i1.,17":f'`,T,' .,r; ,rY : I.I. _ ''i' ;ti• ''r,' .V1 ':v' ;t•r,''a'' .;t. ,r.v,r,:,i t.4 •J Y,. .,J;.; :r*;r ~'r,'''r' PLOT DATFI January 20, 2006- •=x: two :?>.'s":t r:1~: ;N FORAgSES M N7 ~{IL1?~'OgES n 4o°0~ 11 ','''r, ::x: J,r ;•,y .1; .1, :r. :,r.• ^ A FOROTNEA ''.I~ - i' A.h:•:\ •.t,. ••1: 't''':'L" `'~•:r••rYlp•,a,;~ ~C, .;~woo,5•'~ ■Q 't:'':IJ',. MV~hq FN1Yd►YMI,oaO'MAMM~PeWsfdMl n •'1.~r rs•~ ••rYK•'',' 7.i'•f ,•:S ' ,1.~., •.V' .'•A.w.,.r'. 'li . /0.. ~N •''i• 1' Ae„i, M1~nAMnrl4~1•~~YMhdN ~M ao2WP0wA'/ NaN m'P 'f: 11'°•`'•j~, qq J, ti r,' r, r ':1''' ':~i'm-i'': i' t C3 r„x on.Ir X X. A. 'f''.i '.i 1'1: ,;t. `r•" "'1''''r.-:'t 't,' ;,1„ ^'~`A•• ''ti'~1• :t U it ~.i'':t. 5''' ''t• ~ ''I •';1' 'x'001. AIL - OCOORAANI01Nf ORMATION,8Y8 TIM ZCA2005-00003 . r - G, oo ALBERTA RIDER SCHOOL SUMMIT RIDGE SUB- ANNEXATION LH FEAR ' ems, .ti• DR ~Iy LF3~ eCws v 4 f3y+ T1peN Aroa Mep - - ' ' - ` 0 100 '200 800 400 300 Faol ' ' 1-.302 foal - Wormnllon on Iids maP Is [or Oanoril feoaUan an1Y ~irc - hculd De verltled.vAM the Oavelopfnerd Sefylose "k . 15126 SW Flan 81vd - 7 - Tl9etd,OR 97223 . 1 (503) 83"171 - _ - - - • _ _ htlpYAw~w.cl,Opero.orw - - Attachment to Ordinance No: 2005-12 See Section 1 ATTACHMENT 6 Agenda Item: , Hearing Date: August 9.2005 7:30 PM ' ' SECTION •I.. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: ALBERTA RID,ERISUMMIT RIDGE ;ANNEXATION CASE NO.: Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZGA2005-00003 OWNER(S): Various Owners PROPOSAL:Annexation of 5S parcels containing approximateiyacres.into the City 6f Tigard. f16W /9. /p CURRENT' _ ZONING DES16NATION: R-7, Medium Density Residential. ;EQUIVALENT CITY ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7, Medium.Qens1ty-ResidentiaL•-•The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached • single-family -homes,, detached single-family homes with or without•accessory residen'tial.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 outrigght. Some civic and • institutional uses are also pemiitted condrtionatty. LOCATION: Alberta Rider School: WCTM 2S'109AC; Tax Lot 2100 and 2S109AD, ax of 1300; an emainin ` Portions .of Summit Ride Subdivision WCTM 2S109DA, ax ots. .6 ; 8800, 9 , 9700, 9800, 990010000, • 10100.; • 10200, 10300,11500, 11600, 117'00, 1.1'800, 11!)00,-1M00' 12100, 12200, 12300, 12400, 12500, 12600, 12700, 12800,12900,13000; 13400 and 13500, and. WCTM 2S 109DB, Tax Lots 1000, 1900, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, 2700; 2800, • 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, :36.00, 3700, 3800, 3900 and 4000. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:' Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan. Policies 2 and 10; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; and ORS Chapter.222 SECTION It. STAFF RECOMMENDATION } r► ~e o~nnvT rn Y4IF f17Y 1Y111N(l PAGE 10176• SECTION M. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Vicinit lnfortnafion: e su ]ec parce sare.-located at the southeast comer of SW i 3e,and Bull Mountain Road, and to the south in the Summit Ridge Subdivision, west.of SW Greenfield, north of SW Beef Bend. Road. Site Information and -Pro osal Descri tion: ere.are essentia y three areas Involved in this particular annexation request the Alberta Rider School site; the undeveloped,.ponion Phase 3) of.Summit Ridge; and, the remaining oftions 'of Summit Ridge (Phase I and 2) that.wefo• not previously annexed last year, There area total of 56 properties involved in this request totaling approximately . acres. /g. For the first area, the school site, as a, condition of the Conditional Use approval, the applicant-was required to annex the property prior to final building permit. inspection-, This was. done to -allow the school to proceed in a timely fashion on their construction schedule while. going through the process to annex. The intention .is that the annexation will be complete before the school needs-to- open, for if the annexation is not approved: in time; final inspections can't be conducted andthe school cannot•be occupied.. The second area, Phase 3 of Summit Ridge, the subdivision was required to annex prior to . recording the final plat for the lots: This is a standard condition that is applied to properties .requesting development approval-when bordering the city limits. For the third area Phases. I and 2 of Summit Ridge, portions of this subdivision are inside and 'some .are outside the city limits.: During the review of Summit Ridge .Phase 1 and 2, the props :~fyy did not abut the city limits. The City required that the applicant sign a consent . form for fuhrre annexation when -the city limits did abut the site. ' urmg an annexation- Bearing to anneX the Arbor Summit Subdivision immediately, north of Summit Ridge, the . City included one of the parcels of Summit Rid e•through a double majority method. The annexation occurred and was finalized before the plats for. those phases were recorded... The result was that some of the lots that were. created through those. plats ended up. straddling the city limit. boundaries. See the following map. 40V _ 1 { . rrAcr aFVnar•rn. n iF CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 0F.6 SECTION IV.. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRiTERWAND PFNDINGS'. The re evant critena in this case :are Tigard Comprehensive . lan Po icies • 10.1.2, and; :Tigard Community Development. Co a Chapter 18.320, Staff has determined. that the proposal 'is consistent with the .'relevant , policies of the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: Como rehensive Plan o icy e' F--City shall maintain an, ongping.citizen involvement program and.. shall assure that citizen's will, be provided an opportunity to be involved .in all phases of the planning -process.. -this. Policy requires ..an ongoing citizen involvement- program., Interested parties and surrounding pproperty owners within 500 feet have been notified of the public b ai' and notice of the hearing has been ppublished in 'a newspaper of general circulation. The site has been pasted since June 23, 2005.. There have been a number of opportunities for, citizens to . be Involved • in the decision making process; including the review of - t_he subdivision and conditional. use request Policy 10.14': -The Cit( 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 wed available to developed and undeveloped land within the City-of Tigard. The services are: water; sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection. This poliic res~uires adequate service capacity delivery to annexed parcels:: The C' of Tigard, Police, .Engineenng and Water Departments,, NW Ratural Gas; Tualatin' alley- ire acid Rescue, have all reviewed'the annexation sequest and- have offered no objections. In the review of the Alberta Rider School and, Summit Ridge subdivision, staff found .that the ad'acent streets had. adequate: capacity with completion of required improvements; sewers . M5 be. extended up from Bella Vista subdivision on the south, through Summit Ridgeand up throe,gh-the Alberta Rider School site, storm drainage is conveyed.through a new pipe from Bella-Vista to-the Alberta Rider project, and water is. provided, by an existing 12 waterline in Bull Mountain Road: The subdivision approval is contingent orrthe applicant providing these services prior to.,recording the final .plat.. The conditional use . approval also required completion of these utilities and facr[ities:. This policy is satisfei1. ' If required by an adopted capital improvements.program ordinance, the applicant shall sign and record with Washington County a nonremonstrance•a g reerhent regarding the following: Theformation of a..:local improvement..district. (LI.D.)for any, of the following services that 'could be provided through such a district. he extension or improvement of the following: water, sewer, drainage and streets. The formation of a special district for any of the above :services or the inclusion of the property into a special service. district for any of the.above services.. No l_ ffs have been required with the subject parcels' or land use approvals. All public infrastructure listed-above will have to be completed:before the land is subdivided by -a final subdivision pplat or final inspection occurs on the school.building. The costs of proiiidingg such services will be borrie by the applicant. Since there are no capital improvements identifed.for {this site, no nonremonstrance agreement is necessary. The City shall provide urban. services to; areas,within the Tigard urban planning area or with the urban growth boundary upon annexation. The City of Tigard has an urban services agreement with Washington .County for those areas ' within the City's urban growth boundary, in the Bull Mountain -area, This policy has been complied with. PAGE 9.0F 6 Policy 10.1:2: approval of proposed annexations of land,by the city shall be based on findins with respect to the following: 'the ahriexation eliminates an. existing "pocket" or "islgand" of unincorporated territory; or the ann.Oxation will not.create an irregular :boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine -whether the parcel is within or outside the city; the police department has commented upon the annexation; -the land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is contiguous, to the city boundary; the annexation can be accommodated by 'the- services listed in '10.1.1 {a). This Policy pertains to boundary.criteria for annexations. The proposed annexation will not eliminate an existing "pocket" or island" of-unincorporated territory; however the annexation will also not create an irregular boundar' rfiaking -it difficult for police to determine whether a particular parcel is. in • or outside. the a_ly. In. fact, this annexation is - in art to " address a situation where parcels fall both inside and outside the city limits. Spec junsdiction'for a . number of. services is clouded by the partial inclusion of these pi-operUes. eir formation is the result- of disjointed annexation and ' [at approval timing. The subject annexation will eliminate this confusion and implement the original requirements placed on the subdivision regarding annexation of the property The proposed annexation will incorporate the entire subdivision boundary -for Phase 3 of Sumrhit Ridee. In addition, the entire property where the Alberta Rider school site sits-is also included in this Irequest..•Boundaries of this request follow logical. extensions to the edge of the properties, except where the school abuts Bull ''Mountain Road. In that location the annexationi will include the-remaining portion of that road that is not presently in the city limits.' The land is within the Urban. Services Area inside. the. Urban Growth boundary and is bordered by the city limits on the northern side- Services to the subject property are addressed above. This policy is met. Community Develo ment:Code Section 18 3~~O T its . Section ',addresses. approval standards for, annexation proposals: All services and facilities are available to. the area and' have sufficient capacity to provide. service for the proposed annexation' area; Adequate service (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire .protection) capacit ys available-to serve the annexed parcels.. The City of Tigard Police, Engineering and Water, . Departments, NW Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, have. all. reviewed .the annexation -request and havO offered no . objections_ Additionally, the adequacy and availability of services to serve the intended R-7 Medium Density residential and institutional development-has been reviewed and conditioned as. necessary as part, of the Summit Ridge subdivision and Alberta Rider reviews.. Therefore, this policy is satisfied. The applicable comprehensive. planpolicies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. A8 pplivable Comprehensive Plan policies have been addressed above. The impplementing ddinance provisions of ORS 222, TCDC _t 83 go, and Metro ~ode3.09 ere foi1QY►red in rocessing this annexation requesConformnce witother dvelopment code provisions have been addressed in the previous land use reviews. This standard has been met. Assi nment of comprehensive lan and zonin desi nations. The comprehensive pan designation an the zoning esigna on.p ace on. e.prope -shall be, the City's zoning district which most closely implements the" City's or Coun 's compprehensive plan- map. designation, ..:.The assignment of ' these designa 'ons . shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. in the case of land which carries County4esignations, 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/er, izoningg 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. E O 6.. The subject properties are in :the Urban Service Area and are zoned P,7 .medium density . residential, pursuant to the C4..of Ti ard's Urban Services Intergovemmental'A e', ment . The R-7 zoning desigraation is consistent with the original Washington County's R-S zoning -desiggnation as shown in the table below. The City's zoning was adopted by the County with the City's R-7 zoning district when the Intergovernmental Agreement was signed between the county and the. city to provide city planning services to this area.: Therefore, the pproperty does not need' to be rezoned updn annexation. According to.-Seclion 18.320.020.C,-"the City's Comprehensive plan and zoning ' designations occur automatically :and concurrently With the annexation_ Conversion table..-Table 320.9. summarizes. the conversion{ of the` County's plan and zoning esigna ions, to City designations which are most similar. } F•'- 3 ~vyyl,r- t• v~~'~~Ly LY,(Hr+•i:y,y~~ ~Ir 1.•-. ' S~ ,~11 +ti~~: ••aC,i mt•''•'~„ i ~ tw ~F' V,H 1•j ~ s r mss' ~M qr'i•' ri i 1 •M: f•. •,3i y G a::aa.. ~ J , 1 ~ y,• _FMAii S t: ! 1-: .y i. ..h:~ L t; r ,fa ~.'i -i' ~ F _ }T~' _ ,j , .Y ''T r` •i'~':1+L _ .i,y ,<_1 .-:~~}~T ~y1 , - _ A :-r a 1Sfl` hh{Ti°...LL 1 • o.e r}:.,..v.1'.~•, -Ice ih~ 1. ` ar,r.lt• Ki _ ZFl . riF.. ~ ~ . ~ 4 iW `hi++l'<t i•1f!!MN iNi iWh . Metro Me-Tr-o 3.09 requires the. additional standards to be addressed. in annexation decisions in addition to the locat and state review standards. These are addressed"and satisfied as discussed below: Consistency with the directly, applicable .provisions. in an urban` service provider, agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.06.5; The processing has been done consistent with applicable' Urban- Service Provider agreements. Consistency, with directly applicable provisions of urban p• lanning.or other agreement, other'than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a necessary party; The process required by the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Urban Planning Agreement for annexations. TrAFF REPORT TO THE GTY coumaL PAGE 5 OF 6 Consistency with -specific direct!y applicable. 'st'd'ards''or criteria for boundary changes contained in comprehensive land use plans. and public facility.plans; This has been discussed previously in this"-report and, as discussed, this criterion i5 satisfied.. Consistency with specific directly applicable, standards or' criteria for boundary changes contained in the,Regional Framework Plan or, any functional plans; -Because the: Development Code has-been amended, to comply with. applicable 'Metro -functional plan 'requirements„by-comp*ng with, the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is consistent w h the applicable Functional- Plan and the Regional Framework.plan. Whether the proposed changes will promote, or not:.interfere• with the timely, orderly and economic provisions of public facilities and services; . The proposed anriexa#ion will not interfere with the provision of public. facilities or services because it is adjacent to'existing city limits. and services, and the delivery Of those services was anticipated as part of the urban; services agreement which . is intended to promote the timely, orderly, acid economic delivery of those public: facilities and services. if the proposed boundary change Is for annexation of 'territory 'to. Metro; a , determination by Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth' Boundary shall be the primary criterion for approval; The subject property. is already within the Metro boundaries: Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary change in question-under state and local law: Consistency. with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously'in this report: SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS- t Washington County . Department . Of Land Use Transportation, Verizon, Qwest.' ..'Communications, Northwest Natural Gas, Beaverton School District #48, Comcast Cable Corporation,. Portland General Electric; Metro Area Communications, Cleanwater Services, Metro Land Use & Planning; Tualatin Hills Park Rec. District;- Tualatin Valley Water Qistrict, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, and' TigardlTualatin School' District 23J . have had the opportunity to review the proposal and have offered no"objectiohs. Jul 28 2005, PREPARED BY: Morgan r cy DATE Associate Planner SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS . CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH. ORS "CHAPTER 222 ZCA2005-00003 - Alberta Rider / Summit Ridge the City is proceeding with this annexation without an election in the territory to be . annexed under ORS 222.125. 11at statute provides: The legislative body of a :city need not call or hold an election in the city or in any contiguous territory.. proposed-to be annexed or hold the hearing otherwise required under ORS 222.120 when all of the owners of land in that territor aild•pot less than 50 percent of the electors,'if any, residing inthe territory consent in writing to the annexation of the land in the territory acid file a statement of their conserit,with the ' legislative body: Upon receiving written consent to- annexation by owners and electors under this section, the legislative body of the city, by resplution or ordinance, may set the final boundaries-of the area,to be annexed by a legal description and proclaim the annexation. The Council finds:' : . 1. With the exception of one person who has a life 'estate in oneportion of the area originally proposed.for annexation; all of the'owners of land in the territory pioposed for. annexation under ZCA2005-00003 have consented in `writing to annexation to the City of Tigard.and those consents have been duly filed with the city. 2. According to County voter registration information, there is one registered voter residing in the territoryoriginally proposed to be annexed under ZCA2005-00003. That elector'is the same person who has a life estate in'a property within the area originally proposed for annexation. This elector has not signed a petition or consent to annex.. Therefore, the portion of the proposed annexation territory where the elector resides and lias allife estate cannot be included in the proposed annexation without an, election. 3. The.City Council determined to exclude the area where the.elector/life estate holder resides. The annexation of the remaining area. may. proceed without a vote in the.territory to be annexed pursuant to ORS 222.125 because .the City has the consent of 'all owners and there are no electors in the arewnow proposed for annexation. Revised Findings as Submitted to the Tigard City j Council from the City Attorney on September 13,' 2005 FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TU c;utvuvir~~ z a At the August 9,'2005, the City Council received testimony from various persons regarding four. proposed annexations. The Council allowed all parties until August 16 to submit additional written information. This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the ;testimony and written submissions. , The Council received a request to reopen the record to allow a response to the post-hearing written submissions and allowed until August 30 for persons to raise new issues relating to the new testimony, as provided by , ORS 197.763(6)(c) and 197.763(7). This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. 1. After the Council allowed additional time to raise new issues in response to new evidence submitted in the post-hearing written submissions, the City received two. submissions, both a-mails sent by Julie Russell., Neither of those submissions raises new issues because all issues presented in her a-mails had been raised previously. Furthermore, . neither of the submissions addresses new. evidence, submitted after the close of the oral hearing,'but simply contain further argument on the same factual and, legal issues she and other opponents had raised in her earlier."submissions: Therefore, neither are proper submissions under ORS 197:763(6)(c) and 197:763(7). Issues Raised By More Than One Person HB 2484. 2. Some people testified that House Bill 2484 (which has been enacted into law) either prevents the City from approving these annexations or demonstrates a legislative intent that a vote is required in any area to be annexed. House Bill 2484 is straightforward. It amends ORS 195.215, to make it clear that "annexation plans" under ORS Chapter 195 must be approved both by a majority of voters in the territory to be annexed and by'a majority within the City. A., HB 2484 does not apply to the annexations being considered by the City because HB' 2484 applies only to annexation plans under ORS Chapter. 195, and the annexations before the City do not involve annexation plans or ORS Chapter 195. They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222; in particular ORS 222.125. HB 2484, even if it were effective, would not apply to or affect these annexations. B. HB 2484 requires a separate vote in the area to be annexedfor annexation plan annexations. However, requiring a vote'in the area to be annexed would be a meaningless and futile act for areas in which there are no registered voters. There are no registered voters in the area to be annexed in Mountain View Estates annexation (ZCA2.004-00003) or in the Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge annexation area (ZCA2005-00003). All of the registered voters in *the Arlington Heights 3 (ZCA20005-00001) and Wilson Ridge (ZCA 2005-00002) annexation have consented to annexation. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS --ANNEXATIONS Page 1 r , 1. . HB 2722 - 3. FIB 2722 (which has been enacted into law) withdraws the right of cities to veto formation of new cities within.three miles of their borders. Some opponents of . annexation have argued that the intent of this bill is that the wishes of citizens in the affected areas are respected. A. HB 2722 does not apply to annexations. ; B. The affected areas are the areas to be annexed. Two types of persons have interests in the affected areas those who own property and those who reside there. All owners of all properties to be annexed,' and all voters in areas to be annexed, have consented to the annexation. No owner or resident in the areas to be annexed has indicated that they do not wish annexation.. _ ' SB 877 f 4. SB 877 (which has been enacted into law) has three maj or effects. One is that it limits the ability of the City of Beaverton to annex "islands',' of territory surrounded by that City. The second effect is that it requires a majority vote in the.'territory to be,annexed by means of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195. The third effect is to prohibit the. annexation of certain types of industrial property without the, consent of the owner. 'A. The provisions affecting only the City of Beaverton do not apply, to the City of Tigard. B. None of the proposed annexations. are "island" annexations, although an "island" . is created by the Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge annexation. C. The annexations are not annexation plan annexations and are not subject to ORS Chapter' 195. D. The annexations are not of industrial. land and are not the type. of land that cannot be annexed without the consent of the owner. The City has the consent of all owners of all land'being annexed. ' Voluntary or Coerced Consents 5.. Some persons argued that the consents are not valid because they were coerced. . A. None of the people who provided consents stated they were coerced. Those who testified that the consents were coerced did not specify which persons were coerced. Several persons representing.property owners (Tom Weber, John Marquart, Sean Foushee, and Al Jeck) testified orally and/or in writing that consents were voluntary and not coerced. The City Council finds that there is no evidence that any specific individual was coerced into consenting to_annexation. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS-- ANNEXATIONS Page 2 If any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is likely that the person would have appeared at the hearing. The Council finds the testimony of Tom Weber, John Marquart; Sean Foushee and Al Jeck to be more persuasive than the evidence of those claiming coercion because the named individuals were in a position to know whether the consents. were voluntary or. coerced and those who claimed that the consents were coerced did not have personal knowledge regarding the consents. The Council concludes that none of the consents were coerced. B. ORS 222.115 specifically authorizes contracts between a city and a landowner relating to the extraterritorial provision of service in which the'landowner consents toannexation. The fact that the City requires a consent to annexation in return for a contract for the extraterritorial provision of service is explicitly authorized by statute and does not constitute coercion. The City provides planning and building' inspection services extraterritorially and may require consents to annexation in order to provide those services. C. ORS 222.175 recognizes that cities may solicit consents to annexation. The fact that a City seeks consents does not mean that they, were coerced and does not invalidate the consents. Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use Proceeding 6. Some opponents argued that some of the consents were required in connection with land use proceedings, and the City cannot require consents to annexation in order to process a land use application or as a condition of a land use approval. A. For consents that were provided in connection with a land use approval; the time to challenge the City's authority to impose the consents was during the land use process. In all but one of the cases,.the land use process has been completed and the appeal period has passed. The requirement to provide a consent to annexation can no longer be challenged in those cases. B. None of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use proceedings have in anyway challenged the consents or the. requirement to provide the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified that they affirmatively desire that their properties be annexed to the City of Tigard. The applicant for the'one land use process that has not been completed (Arlington Heights 3) has testified that the consent to annex that territory was voluntarily provided, and the City Council finds that the consent in that case was voluntary. General Concern For The Bull Mountain Area 7. Some opponents stated concerns related to the Bull Mountain area in general and to their. property in unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain. Some of them argued that the proposed annexations should not proceed because of the negative vote when the Bull CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 3 Mountain Annexation Plan was presented to the voters-in the area to be annexed. A. The rights and interests of the owners and.registered voters in the areas proposed for annexation are recognized by statute. The statutes do not•create a legally protected interest for other persons. B. These annexations are different from the annexation plan presented to the voters. These annexations.are property-specific annexations under ORS Chapter 222. The City and the annexation applicants are not requesting approval of an annexation plan. The rejection of an annexation_plan under ORS Chapter 195 does not prevent later annexation of specific territory under a different annexation statute. . "Double Maiority" Vote 8. Some opponents of the annexation argued that'a "double majority" vote-(a separately tabulated vote in the City and in the area to be annexed) is required. A. A "double majority'.'. vote is or will be required for annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195. However, for annexations under ORS. Chapter 222, votes in the City . are not.required unless•required by City charter or ordinance, and-votes in the area to be annexed are not required if certain criteria.are met. A vote in the area to be annexed is not required if all of the owners of all of the land and a majority of the electors in the area to be annexed, if any,. consent to the~annexation..ORS 222.125. The City Charter and Code do not require a vote within the City. B. As to each of the annexations, the City has received the consents of all'of the owners •of all of the land. The City has also received the consents of all of the registered voters in each area that has registered voters.; These annexations are -not annexation plan annexations under ORS 195, so the double majority requirement does not. apply. The City is not required to hold a vote in any of the territories to be annexed, either because there are no electors in the areas to be annexed or because the City has the consent of a majority of the electors in those areas. "Islands" Of Unincorporated Areas Surrounded By The City , 9. 'Some opponents argued that these annexations create islands of unincorporated areas surrounded by the City, They also note that the City may later annex those islands without consent of owners or electors. A.= There is no legal prohibition on the creation of islands. The City must consider annexation applications that create.islands under applicable, standards. While the Council must consider whether the borders created by an annexation are'so irregular as to potentially cause problems with the provision of police services, CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS. Pago 4 the police department accepts these boundaries as being acceptable and not causing confusion for the provision of police services. The police department has provided written statements that they can provide services. The Council finds that the boundaries`are not irregular to the extent they create confusion in the provision of police services. B., The .City does have the authority. to, annex' islands, but is aware that the statutory authority to annex'islands may be withdrawn, as it has been withdrawn from one other city and from certain types of land: The possibility of a future annexation proceeding is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding whether to approve these annexations. Re ular Boundaries 10. Several persons commented that the annexations will not result in a regular boundary. A. The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1:2,'which provides: Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on findings with respect to the following: a.. The annexation eliminate an existing "pocket' or "island of unincorporated territory;. or b. The annexation will not, create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for, the police in an emergency situation to, determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City; c. The police department has commented on the annexation; d. The-land is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is contiguous to the City boundary; e. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(a). B. Policy 10.1.2 is complied with if either (1) subsection &or (2) subsections b through a are met. These annexations comply with subsections b through e. The annexation boundary will not make it difficult for the police in emergency situations to determine whether the parcel is within or without the City. The police department has commented on the annexation and stated that it is capable of providing service. All areas proposed for annexation are within the Tigard Urban, Planning Area` and are contiguous to the City. The services listed in 10.1.1(a) (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police and fire protection) can be provided to the areas-to be annexed - the City and other responsible service Y providers have capacity.to provide service to the areas to be annexed. The CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 5 Council finds that the annexations provide for a reasonable. extension of the City's boundaries- Individual Comments- Testimony.at Hearin; Les and Ellen Godowski 11. The Godowskis argued that the annexations will also prevent certain areas from creating . their own cities or annexing to King City. A. The City has no obligation to refrain from annexing territory based on the. . possibility that some other city may be-incorporated in the area at some point in the future. B. All applicable plans and intergovernmental agreements that address urbanization or the provision of urban services designate. Tigard as the City that will annex and/or provide urban services, to the areas being annexed. Charles Radley 12. Charles Radley argued that the annexations would violate Dolan v. City of Tigard and that there is no "essential nexus." Mr. Radley also provided a written document, A. Dolan v. City of Tigard applies only to cases in which the City exacts property from a property owner at the time of a land use approval., Dolan does not apply to annexations. B. To the extent the Mr. Radley is arguing that the City could not require the property, owners to consent to annexation as a condition of land use approval, that challenge is too late. The land use approvals are final and cannot be collaterally challenged. Furthermore, Mr. Radley was not the applicant or a landowner in any of the land use cases and lacks standing to challenge conditions that have been accepted by the applicants. C. The•"essential nexus" requirement is imposed on exactions by the Nollan v. California Coastal Commission case.' Like Dolan, the case applies only to exactions at the time of land use approvals, not to annexations. To the extent that Mr. Radley is challenging conditions of approval in the previous land'use cases, that challenge is too late, and Mr. Radley lacks standing to make the challenge. D. The document that Mr. Radley provided is an excerpt discussing the requirement, under Rhode Island law, that a building official must issue a building permit that meets the requirements of the building code. Rhode.Island-law concerning CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 6 , building officials is not relevant to any issue regarding these annexations. If Mr. Radley is attempting to argue that the C. cannot require a consent to annexation, any requirement regarding consents to annexations by the City are imposed in the context of a land use proceeding.. The City has more authority and more discretion in land use proceedings than in issuing building permits. . Julie Russell . .13. In addition to issues raised by others, Ms. Russell claimed that the map included with the notice of annexation was inaccurate as to which areas are included within the City limits and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell argued that the City's process violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1. and CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell stated dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning. A. The maps provided with the notice were accurate. They showed the location of the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by a shaded yellow area. There is no requirement to provide a map with the notice of the annexation hearing. Even if there was some inaccuracy, the maps provided sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed and their relationship to the City. The City provided notice in compliance with all applicable requirements. In the event that some person may have failed to, receive notice, failure of a person to receive notice does not invalidate the notice, which was properly provided. B. Comprehensive Plan Poli cy 2. 1.1 provides: "The City shall maintain -an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that. citizens will be provided an opportunity. to be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is not an approval standard or criterion for an annexation application. The City's land use regulations have be ,n acknowledged, and those regulations provide the process, including citizen involvement, for considering land use applications. That process includes notice and a hearing, and the City provided notice and a hearing, as required by the CDC. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations ' demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by the regulations. Citizens, including Ms. Russell, have had the opportunity to be . involved in process. The process of necessity works differently in a quasi judicial land use process than in a legislative process. C. CDC 18.320.020 provides: 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards A. Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using standards of approval contained in Subsection B2 below- B. B. Approval Criteria. The decision to :approve, approve with CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page, 7 modification, or deny an application to annex property to the•'City shall be based on the following criteria: 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and 2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most ± closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the.annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the City shall convert -the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the . City designations which are the most similar. k zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or zoning map designation other.than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the. annexation • . has been approved. D. ' Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and. zoning designations to. City designations which are most similar. The City used a Type IV approval process. The City has capacity to provide all required services to the area to be annexed, and the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; including those in Chapter 10, have been satisfied. The properties beingannexed already have City comprehensive plan and zoning designations, that have been adopted and imposed by the County. Ms. Russell specifically argued that the City lacks parks capacity in the area. However, the City has sufficient parks capacity throughout the City to provide service to its residents, including residents in the areas being annexed. The services listed in the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer, storm sewer, streets, police and fire. protection, are the' essential services that must be available, and those services will be available to the newly- annexed areas. Ms. Russell questioned the adequacy of the street system. The City Council finds that the street system is adequate to . provide service and will remain adequate. If the properties are not annexed, they could still be developed consistent with'the County zoning, which is the same as City zoning, so whether the. properties are annexed or not does not affect the impact on the street system. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 8 I L D. The areas to be annexed all have existing City zones that were established consistent. with Table 320.1. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Community Development Code provisions. Scott Miller 14. In addition to issues addressed in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these findings, Mr. Miller stated a concern, with an increase in taxes. Mr. Miller also argued that.the consents received by the City are not consents. A. Mr. Miller does not own property being annexed. His property is outside the area proposed for annexation. His taxes will not increase as a ,result of the annexation. The property owners in the area to be annexed have consented to the annexation. Whether taxes may increase is not an ''applicable standard or criterion in deciding an annexation. B. For each of the annexations, the City'has,either the written consent`of the property owners or a petition from the property owners -to initiate the annexation. All are valid consents. Lisa Hamilton Treick 15. In addition to issues address.in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these findings, Ms. Hamilton Treik argued that Measure 37 gives property owners rights that are violated by these annexations. A. Ms. Hamilton Treik does not own property that will be annexed by these annexations. All owners of property being annexed have-consented to these annexations. The property owners or their representatives who testified expressly stated that they voluntarily consent to the annexations. One of them, Tom Weber, stated that he actively sought annexation to Tigard because of the value it brings . to his property. Measure 37 is not an applicable standard or criterion for annexation. 16. Ms. Hamilton Treik also argued that the City has no authority to condition land use approvals Or acceptance of land use applications on a consent to annexation. A. In addition to Findings 6 and 7, the various agreements with the County and other urban service providers, including the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement and Tigard Urban Service Agreement, anticipate that the City will provide planning services and will ultimately annex Tigard's-urban service area. Requiring annexation is not inconsistent with those agreements. Urban Service Agreement Section LD provides that the City shall endeavor to annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed for annexation. Requiring annexation consents effectuates this provision of the Urban Service Agreement. The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement gives Tigard all land use decision-making authority over the area to be annexed.. Land use authority; CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 9 includes the authority to impose conditions. The City has the authority to impose a condition of approval requiring consent to annexation when it receives a land use application for a property outside the City. Individual Comments - Post-Hearing YPritten Submissions Julie Russell ' • 17. Ms. Russell again discussed general opposition to annexation in the Bull Mountain area, HB 2484, SA 887, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1. l .and 10.1.2, and CDC 18.320.020. The above findings address those arguments. 18. Ms. Russell also argues that the zoning is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The areas have all been rezoned by the County and the zoning being applied is the zoning required by CDC 18.320. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the written testimony of John Marquart, there is little -or no practical difference between Washington County R-6 and Tigard R-7, zoning, as applied. 19. Ms. Russell argues that not.everyone who was. entitled to receive notice actually received . notice. The City provided notice as required by. applicable regulations. While it is possible that some persons did not receive notice, the City'complies with the notice requirements. 20.. Ms. Russell complains about possible effects on other, service providers. The City has not received any negative comments from other service providers. All service. providers in the area have agreed that the area being annexed "will be annexed to Tigard. Services .will be provided as agreed to in the Urban Services Agreements entered into bythe City' and other service providers. 21. Ms: Russell'argues that the annexation will interfere with the orderly and economic provision of public facilities-and services: However, her argument, appears to be-that . services can be provided without annexation.' That does not mean that annexation will disrupt or interfere with service provision. The agreements between the service providers 'will"ensure orderly and economic provision of services. 22. Ms. Russell argues that the Alberta Rider, School property should not be annexed. None of her arguments relate to any applicable standard or criterion. 23. Ms. Russell opposes the Summit Ridge annexation as non-contiguous. The Summit Ridge area being annexed will be contiguous with the City on annexation. 24. Ms. Russell objects to the Annexation of. Arlington Heights 3 on the grounds that the annexation will cause annexation to a homeowners association. That argument does not, related to any applicable standard-,or criterion. Participation in a homeowner's association is a matter of contract between the parties and unrelated to a City's authority to annex. Ms Russell also argues that the City cannot annex only part of a subdivision. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 10 No applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation of part of.a subdivision. Furthermore, Arlington Heights 3' is a separate subdivision from Arlington Heights 1 and .2 LaVelle and Marie Day 25. The Days object to the annexation on the grounds.that the annexation may interfere with efforts to annex to King City,or to create a new city. This argument does not relate to any applicable criterion or standard. None of the Days' other arguments are based on applicable standards or criteria. Jackie and Gary Kisling 26. The Kislings raise issues related to HB 2484 and BB 2722. Those bills are addressed in the above findings. Henry Kane 27. Mr. Kane makes arguments against island annexations. None of the annexations are island annexations. Lisa Hamilton-Treik and Tom Treik 28. Ms. Hamilton-Treik and.Mr. Treik oppose the process in.which the hearings on four annexations were combined as causing hardship on'those who wish to appeal! Even if the . hearings had not been combined; the hearings could have been, and most likely would have been held at the same meeting. Therefore, the appeals would have all been due at -.the same time. Combining the hearings allowed'people to state their objections a single time so as to avoid multiple repeated testimony. All persons were given a full opportunity to address any issues related to any of the four annexations. 29. They also object to the boundaries as being irregular and question the voluntariness of the consents. These issues are addressed above. 30. They also oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to Tigard's TIF accounts. 'That is not a relevant issue.and does not relate to any applicable standard or criterion. Philip E. Decker 31. Mr. Decker opposes the annexations as not being contiguous. No property being annexed will be separated from the City..by any intervening unincorporated territory. The: annexations are of contiguous property.-, 32. Mr. Decker. argues that'ORS 222.115 allows annexation contracts only for contiguous parcels. ORS 222.115 does not require that property ,be contiguous at the time an. annexation contract is signed. One purpose of ORS 222.115 is to allow,properties that CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 11 are not contiguous to consent to annexation so that they can receive urban services immediately and be annexed later when intervening properties annex. The.contiguity requirement applies only when the annexation becomes effective. 31 Mr. Decker argues that the areas being annexed are irregularly shaped. The shape. of the area being annexed is not an issue. .34. Mr. Decker argues that previous annexations were improper, The previous annexations are final and have not been challenged. They cannot be collaterally attacked at,this time. Comments In Support 35. After the hearing, the City received several written comments in support of the proposed annexations, including statements from Sean Foushee, on behalf of the applicants for the Mountain View Estates, from John Marquart on behalf of the applicant for the Wilson Ridge annexation, and from Tom Weber; on behalf of the owners of the Arlington Heights 3 property, all of whom stated that the annexation applications were voluntary. Mr. Marquart and Mr. Weber addressed other issues, strongly. supporting the annexations of their respective areas. G:Muni\TigardVtviscdannexationfindings081705.doc 1 ' f CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 12 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.OS-~ AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS TO GRANT A BALLOT MEASURE 37 WAIVER OF THE R-25 ZONING' RESTRICTIONS TO BURTON GRABHORN -FOR 10.5 ACRES AT TEE' INTERSECTION OF SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD AND 135TH AVENUE (LOT 63, HAWK'S BEARD TOWNHOMES, AND TAX LOT 14500, WCTM IS 133AC) 'TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL . SHOPPING CENTER, VARIOUS TENANTSAJSES, AS WELL AS RETAIL SALES, VEHICLE FUEL SALES AND SIGNAGE OF THE -C-G GENERAL, COMMERCIAL ZONE SUBJECT TO APPLYING. . FOR AND RECEIVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL (M372005-00003). WHEREAS, The voters of the State of Oregon passed Ballot Measure 37 in 2004; and . . WHEREAS, Ballot Measure 37 provides for the responsible governing body to either pay compensation for reduced'property value or waive the regulations where property is owned prior to the adoption of land use regulations; and WHEREAS, a, claim was made by Burton Grabhom in the amount of $4,562,360 as the net difference in the value of the property under R-25 medum high residential zoning versus potential commercial zoning, and WHEREAS, Mr. Grabhom has' owned the property since September, 1952 preceding the present zoning as well, as City incorportation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE•CITY OF-TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The attached staff report and applicant's statement are hereby-adopted as findings. SECTION 2: A waiver from the R-25 zoning requirements is hereby granted to Burton Grabhorn to allow a commercial shopping center to be sited at the location described in the Title to this ordinance. The commercial shopping center may include retail uses, ~ vehicle sales and other uses allowed in: the C-G General Commercial zone. Site development review is required before actual development and the.revie ' shall apply the standards of the C- G zone for all development, including 'signage. Although' the waiver is granted to Burton Grabhorn, oance'ihe,site development review application is filed, application will be processed under the'C-G standards even if the property is transferred after the site`- development review application is filed,` and development may occur consistent 'with any approved site development review. Once the property is- developed, it may continue to be used for retail and vehicle fuel sales, even if there are changes in ownership. or tenants. Once Mr. Grabhom ceases to be the owner, however, any expansion or major modification beyond development applied for during his ownership shall be subject to the rules in effect at the time of application. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be, effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature,by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. ORDINANCE No'. 05'- Paged being read by number hers present after vote of all Council - 2005. ~;el day Of pASSED, 8 dtitle only, - City Reorder Catbe~e~~tley~• • - 2005 day'of Tiprd City Council A~pRCVED By 9V- roas to te oRDINANCF, Cen, May°r . Page 2 . Attachment to City of Tigard Ordinance No. ,05-13 Staff:Re ortk Agenda Item: Hearing Dater Se tember 13, 2005 Time: 7:30 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE ` CITY COUNCIL Cffy Or. IG"b ' Community Oeve4ment FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON shaAoetC°"ty 180-DAY CLAIM PROCESSING PERIOD =12/712005 SECTION L CLAIM SUMMARY FILE NAME: •GRABHORN PROPERTY COMPENSATION CLAIM CITY CASE NO: MEASURE 37 CLAIM (M37) M372005-00003 CLAIMANT/ Burton Grabhom OWNER: 14577 SE Anderson Road,. Clackamas, OR 97011 CLAIMANT'S Roger (Mike) Van REPRESENTATIVE 6860 SW Boeckman Road Wilsonville, OR 97070 CLAIM: The claimant seeks. a waiver "and/or change in the underlying zoning and comprehensive plan designation' on a 10.45 acre.., site from the present high-density R-25 residential zoning to C-C or C-G commercial, zoning that would' permit vehicle fuel sales and multiple retail tenants:' The claimant is also seeking waiver.to access restrictions and :sign requirements:. The amount claimed as compensation without such waiver or change is $4,562,360.00 AFFECTED REGULATION: Residential R-25 " zoning; Comprehensive . Plan designation as residential; Transportation System Plan and Development Code access restrictions; any other zoning and building code restrictions .or overlay zones that preclude a commercial use; sign code restrictions. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-25: High-Density-Residential District. 'LOCATION:, Lot 63, Hawk's..Beard Townhomes; WCTM.1S133AC Tax Lot .14500. On the south side of SW Scholls Ferry Road, ,between SW 130" and 1351 Avenue. APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA: Municipal Code Chapter 1.20. SECTION IL STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council-review the following report and determine whether the:claims are valid. Staff further recommends that City Council opt for a waiver of the regulations versus compensation as described in the conclusion section of this report. GRABHORN PROPERTY COMPENSATION CLAIM STAFF REPORT (M372005.00003). PAGE 1 OF 7 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 9/13/2005, SECTION Ili. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is one of the last large vacant high density multi-family properties.left in the City of Tigard. The parcel was the subject of a comprehensive, plan amendment application by'Haagens (Brior Development) from R-25 to G-G in. 1995 (CPA 95-03). That request was denied by the City. Council. The potential housing impact is a loss of approximately 260 units.. At the-time of that application, Metro's required housing target capacity of 10 units-per acre was narrowly met at 10.46 units to the acre. The Haggens proposal would have reduced the units per acre to 10.36. No updated figures for' overall housing density are available. Conversion of this property may have impacts to the City's ability. to. comply with Title 3 of Metro's Code. A zone change request for a similarly zoned property across the street was withdrawn in..1996 by another applicant after early deliberations from Council indicated a denial was impending, based in part,due to the lost potential for'housing. SECTION Ill. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Section 1.20.030 states a, property owner wishing to ' make a claim' against the City, under Measure 37 shall first submit a claim to the City. A claim under Measure 37 must be in writing' and include: A. Identification of the affected property. Identification- may be`by street. address, subdivision lot number, tax lot number; or any other. information that identifies the property. The claimant identifies the properly' as "SW Scholls, Ferry Road, Tax -Map and Tax .Lot 1S133AC 14500, Subdivision Lot 63, Hawk's Beard,Townhomes". i B. The name and contact information of the person making the claim, •the date the Claimant acquired the property,.and, -if applicable, the date that a family. member of Claimant acquired the property and the names and relationships of.family,members that, are previous owners. The name and contact information of the person making the claim is Burton Grabhorn, 14577 SE Anderson ,Road, Clackamas, OR 97011, (503) 658-7075; The property was'acquired by the claimant on September 22, 1952 as shown in the Warranty Deed for the property.. C. A list of all persons with an.ownership interest in or a lien on the property. `f The title report identifies the claimant as the sole owner, and no'. liens on the property. D. Identification of the regulation that is. alleged to restrict the use of the affected property and a statement describing how the restriction affects the value of the property. The claimant has, generally identified the Residential R-25* Zoning, the Comprehensive Plan designation as residential, access restrictions on-all abutting'streets, sign code restrictions, and "any other zoning and building code'restrictions or overlay zones that preclude a commercial use.". There is' some question as to whether this is sufficient: detail to assess the claim; but on the other hand,. it may be' onerous- to. require a list detailed to .the extent of specifying each particular code section, particularly°.in this case since the ownership predates the entire comprehensive plan, zoning ; designations; and *all other city land use restrictions. E. A statement. whether the Claimant prefers compensation or a waiver, suspension or modification of the regulation, and a statement describing the extent to which the regulation would need to be waived, suspended or modified, to avoid the need for compensation. A description of the proposed use must be provided. The claimant states that his preference is for a waiver; "and/or receive a commercial zoning such as C-C or,C-G with vehicle fuel sales. permitted." The regulation would need to be waived, suspended or modified' to allow a "commercial shopping center, various tenants/uses. All retail sales." The C-C Zone and C-G zone allow vehicle fuel sales as a conditional use. GRABHORN PROPERTY COMPENSATION CLAIM STAFF REPORT (M372005-00003) PAGE 2 OF 7 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 9193/2005 1=. The amount claimed as compensation and documentation supporting 'the amount. The documentation shall include a market analysis, an appraisal, or other.documentation. at least equivalent to a market analysis. The claimant has provided.a Market Analysis prepared by Mike Van'Investment Real, Estate. The market analysis compares similar sales in the area and the recent sale of a,,portion of the subject property to determine.a net difference in value between commercially zoned property and the recent sale of the residential property. This` analysis results in a difference of $4,562,360.00. This analysis is provided. in the applicant's attached materials. G. The name and contact information 'of the Claimant's authorized representative or representatives, if applicable: . The: claimant's representative is Roger (Mike) Van; 6860 SW Boeckman Road.,. Wilsonville, OR 97070. {503) 685-9283. Section 1.20.080 outlines the criteria for making- a decision on the compensation claim. In deciding the claim, the Decision Maker may take any of the following actions: Den the claim based On any one or more of the following findings: a. The regulation. does not restrict the use of the private, real property. The regulation cited includes the residential zoning districts which lists allowable uses. Prohibited uses on this list include general commercial uses. There are no valid use variance -procedures to permit the desired use, (retail and vehicle fuel sales) on the property.. The regulation cited (residential zoning and comprehensive plan designation) is a clear restriction on the desired use (commercial) of the property, The claimant also cites access restrictions on all abutting streets. One of these. streets, SW Scholls Ferry Road is. a State. Highway with access controlled by ODOT_ (see criteria "i" below): Staff opines that a complete 'lack. of access would restrict the "uses on` the property, • or restrictions that would .prevent required access for the use proposed, for example a commercial development. that requires two accesses where only one is allowed, would restrict the use of property. But in this case, the applicant has access from SW Scholls Ferry Road via a settlement with ODOT,'and there are points along the frontage that would meet current code requirements for access. Based on this, staff Ends that aclaim based on general "access restrictions" is first, not a restriction on the use of the property that prohibits a particular use of the property or makes.that use only permissible under certain conditions. Second, the claim is not ripe, as no access has been prevented to • the property in, question (see criteria."j" below).. And third, the claimant has not shown the reduction in property value based on a reduced number of accesses; the specific number as yet unknown. The market analysis only examines comparable types of commercial real. estate uses in comparison to the uses presently allowed. The claimant cites sign restrictions. Signage,'while not customarily a.primary use on a site, may be considered. a use. • Since the claimant has owned the property prior to any restrictions on signage existed, any subsequent regulation would restrict the..use (whether primary or subordinate) on the property. However,. as described later, the claimant's market analysis has not shown a reduction in the value of the property based on any particular sign restrictions. Sign restrictions promote public safety and prevent nuisances. b. The fair market value of the property is not reduced by the passage or enforcement of the regulation.. GRABHORN PROPERTY COMPENSATION CLAIM STAFF REPORT (M372005-00003) PAGE 3 OF 7 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 9/1312005 The claimant has'submitted a market analysis that is current and includes relevant data to.determine- the difference in value from the property's present high density residential designation (R-25) to the desired C-G or C-C zoning. This market analysis concludes that the net difference in value for the nearly 10%2 acre site is $4,562,360.00. The claimant has not shown a reduction in property value from signor access, restrictions. c. The claim was not timely filed. The claim was filed within two years.of passage of Measure 37. It was a timely filing. d. The Claimant is not the current property owner. According to the title information, the claimant is the current property owner. e. The. Claimant or family member of Claimant was not the property owner at the time the regulation was adopted. The claimant has' owned the property since September 22, 1,95Z The Citywas incorporated in 1961. The property was annexed into. the City in 1987. The Claimant owned the property at the time the regulation was adopted. C The regulation is a historically and commonly recognized nuisance law or a law regulating pornography.or nude dancing. The desired zoning, C-G, permits Adult Entertainment as a conditional use. 'If the claim,is granted, this specific use could be prohibited for this parcel. Access restrictions relate to traffic safety. Generally, regulations that protect public safety are „ Considered "nuisance laws". Sign restrictions are not likely to be upheld as a historical and commonly recognized nuisance.law. However; two of the stated purposes from the sigWcode are "to accommodate the need of sign users while avoiding nuisances to nearby properties" and "to minimize distractions for motorists on public'. . highways and streets." , Therefore depending on the type and extent of signage, the sign could possibly be deemed a nuisance. To determine. whether the regulation was a historically and commonly recognized' nuisance law, a specific sign proposal would need to be evaluated. It can be ' inferred however, that any signage that was permissible in the CrG commercial zone would not constitute a nuisance, since it is allowed elsewhere in the City, and in this particular case, the site is nearby, other commercial signage and lies along an'arterial' route. An unexpected introduction of commercial. signage, say in the heart. of a residential neighborhood, could constitute a distraction to . drivers or cause glare onto adjacent'parcels and hence be considered a nuisance. g. The regulation is.required.by federal law. There are. no known federal regulations, that would require the specific use in the specific location. Therefare likely restrictions as to the.placement of the vehicle fuel sales in relation. to other adjacent properties, but these are not known to staff and are typically enforced by DEQ or EPA agencies. The regulations related to access restrictions are not known by .staff, to be based on federal -requirements-., -The regulations related to signage• restrictions are, not known by staff, to be based. on federal requirements. GRABHORN PROPERTY COMPENSATION CLAIM STAFF REPORT (M372005-00003) PAGE 4 OF 7 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 91130005 h. The regulation: protects public health and safety: Allowing retail uses or gas stations (that otherwise conform to other safety.and nuisance regulations) is not a matter of public health or safety as the City clearly has examples of such uses throughout the City and still permits, such uses. There are locational criteria that were established for commercial zones in order to protect neighborhoods from incompatible uses and nuisances typically associated ' with certain commercial type uses. Access restrictions exist to protect the public in the' form of traffic safety, to reduce conflicting turning movements as well as reduce conflicts .between . pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. But, here again, the claimant has not proposed a specific 'design, so the most that can be said is that the regulation requested to be waived protects public safety. The claimant would need to sfiow.through 'a detailed, design, that the proposed access would still be safe as related -to these standards. . As* discussed previously, some sign, restrictions relate to safety, but most are aesthetic protections on public welfare. The claimant has not specifically identified the regulation to be modified, and it would be irresponsible of the City to waive all signage restrictions absent a more detailed assessment of impacts on safety. The"claimant would need to show through a detailed design, that the proposed signage would not cause impacts to traffic'or general-public safety. _ i. The City is not.the entity responsible for payment.. The City is not responsible if the challenged law, rule, ordinance, ,resolution,. goal or other enactment was not enacted or. enforced by the City.. The. City may not have originally designated the property for residential use. Since this property was •in the unincorporated county up until its annexation in 19874 and zoning was'generally instituted in the . 1970's, it is likely the county had originally designated the property for residential- use.. The City, upon annexation likely continued this. designation but adopted the nearest conforming zone for high density residential. Nevertheless, the discussion- is.-moot, since the City enacted the present .zoning designation, and is the jurisdiction responsible for enforcing the rules being challenged. , ' j. The City has not taken final- action to enforce or apply,, the regulation to the property for' which compensation is claimed. No detailed `'development plan or land use proposal has.been reviewed or final action taken on to apply the challenged regulations. The City had issued -notices of infractions, based on, improper signage on the site previously, but the ;thrust of this compensation claim is based on the desire for. commercial zoning or permission to develop retail. uses. Signage rules: are also- listed, but the . compensation analysis does not provide any relevant information pertaining to this.-regulation: Staff notes that it is clear that a* request for retail development under the present zoning would not be approved without a.waiver of those rules, and suggests that a development plan be filed as,further described in this report to determine to what extent the regulations in fact affect the property. • k: The City.has not established a fund for payment of claims under Measure 37. No such fund has been, established at this time: I: The Claimant is not legally.entitled to compensation for a reason',other-than those listed in subsections a through- k.. The basis for this' finding must be clearly explained. Staff-finds no other reasons, aside from those already listed, to deny the claim: GRABHORN PROPERTY COMPENSATION CLAIM STAFF REPORT (M372005-00003), PAGE 5 OF 7 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 9!73/2005 " 2. Pay compensation, either in the amount requested or in some other amount supported by the evidence. If the City pays compensation, the City shall continue to apply and enforce the regulation. Any compensation shall be paid from funds appropriated for that purpose. The City may require. any: person -receiving compensation to sign a waiver of future claims for compensation under Measure 37. and the . City. may record . that waiver with 'the County Recorder. Under Measure 37, only the current property owner is entitled to a'waiver, and the waiver is limited to specific property. However, to properly implement Measure 37, the property owner, must be able not only to develop the property, but-to transfer the developed property,to a third party, but without crating any Measure 37 rights in the. new owner. Staff proposes that the Waiver. be to the person, Mr. Grabhom, but that any development resulting from applications filed during Mr. Grabhorn's ownership be allowed to be built and maintained even if :transferred. If the property is, sold: expansions and major modifications would be subject:to the standards in effect at the time .of application. The,City Council will need to make a determination of whether funds maybe appropriated: to pay the claim. Staff finds that the evidence supports" the amount requested, but suggests-that the City conduct its own market analysis prior to paying any such a claim. 3: -Waive or not apply the regulation'to allow the owner to use- the property for a use permitted, at the time the•Claimant acquired the property. The City Council shall decide whether to _pay the claim or waive the regulation.. Staff recommends that should a waiver be granted, • it shall run with the person, not the land, and shall be a specific exemption to allow retail uses and vehicle fuel'sales in the R-25 zone for that parcel as it presently is configured. 4.. Modify the regulation so that it does not give rise to a claim for compensation.- Any such modification shall be for the specific property only unless the City follows the procedure for a 'legislative land use decision. Insofar. as waiving 'the restriction 'on the particular use, of the, property,, staff opines that the modification shall apply only to this property, but shall run with the claimant and his qualifying. heirs, not run with the land. Site Development Review procedures should be applied to, application by Mr. Grabhorn for retail development on the site, and the'proposal will be subject to standard application of other development code regulations to the extent that they. do -not prevent the retail use from being established. The applicant should also be required to submit signage details,. with the SDR application, so that staff may apply the rules generally governing C-G zone signage: This will avoid < the need to file a new Measure,37 claim prior to obtaining signage: Staff'will need to make findings regarding the signage based on whether or not the proposed signs impact public safety; or constitute a nuisance. Withregard to the access restrictions, staff believes,that there -are :opportunities for conforming points of access on site, and recommends that a waiver. not be granted until it can be clearly shown that the particular access restriction prevents the desired use from occurring on the property,. 5. Conditionally waive or suspend the regulation subject to receipt of a defined amount of contributions toward compensation by'.a. specified date from persons opposed to the waiver or suspension, such a"s- persons who believe they would be negatively affected by waiver or suspension, with' the waiver or suspension being granted, if the defined amount of contributions is not received by the specified date. If the contributions are received, compensation shall be paid within 180 days of the date the claim was .filed.. The specified -date shall allow the City time to process the contributions. and pay, compensation.. No contributions for compensation have been identified At this time. GRABHORN PROPERTY COMPENSATION CLAIM STAFF REPORT (M372005-00003) PAGE 6 OF 7 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 911312005 i The Decision Maker may take other actions it deems- appropriate in individual -circumstances; may modify the listed actions, and/or may combine the listed actions, consistent with Measure 37. The Decision Maker may negotiate an acceptable solution with the Claimant or may direct staff to negotiate with the' Claimant. In the event that the Decision Maker directs 'staff, to negotiate, the matter .shall be set for further action by the* Decision Maker no less than 175 days.from the date of the notice of claim became complete. The Council shall take final action . within 180 days of the claim. -The Decision Maker shall take actions 2 through 5 only if it determines the claim is valid.. The Staff recommendation is a combination of the above actions: waive the regulations related to the use restriction to allow the claimant to establish retail sales and vehicle fuel sales on site; condition this, waiver on the stipulation that the exemption run with the claimant for the specific parcel as configured; require standard application of the site development review procedures.and development standards; and allow signage that conforms to the C-G or C-C commercial zones, subject to a finding ,.that public safety is not affected.and a.nuisance is not created; deny the claim for access restrictions as untimely and not substantiated. No actual compensation is recommended under this scenario: A decision by a Decision Maker oth er than Council shall not be a final decision, but shall be a recommendation to Council. 'This report represents only-a recommendation to the .City Council and is-not a"final decision of the City. SECTION IV. -CONCLUSION Staff finds that there are three elements of this' claim: allowable use; access restrictions; signage restrictions. Based on the information presented by the claimant and the findings contained in this report, staff finds merit in the claim for permissible uses, and concludes that this -claim is 'valid. The fair market analysis is based on-current and sound market data,'and while not making a judgment on the specific'-numbers,. staff believes that the am' ount.of compensation requested is roughly accurate. With regard to the,,access restrictions, staff finds the claim should be denied, based on the .claimants failure to properly,substantiate the claim with a market analysis, the fact that th'e' restriction: is -not a restriction on use, and that the city has not applied or enforced this restriction on this property.. Moreover, there are aspects of public safety at stake; which require the city reserve the ability to review. the access. locations and -restrict their location and design as, appropriate, provided such restrictions do not prevent the desired use (retail and vehicle fuel'sales) from being established. As for the signage limitations, the claimant has failed to substantiate the claim with a market analysis, however, staff finds'that.it is'likely that'under current,signage.requirements for the R-25 zone, the desired use (retail and, vehicle fuel.sales) will not be feasibly permitted to operate. Therefore, to avoid the .need to return to this matter, with a 'separate Measure 37 claim, staff recommends' that signage be allowed on .the condition that it is accompanied by a detailed. development plan proposal (for "Site Development Review), adheres to the requirements of other C-G or C-C zones, and. is found to not affect public'safety or constitute a nuisance. An ordinance adopting the staff report and applicant's;statement as findings and establishing a waiver. of the. R-25 zoning to allow C-G zoning. subject to standard site development- review is attached as Attachment 2. August 23, 2005 APPROVED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DATE. Planning Manager GRABHORN PROPERTY COMPENSATION CLAIM STAFF REPORT (M372W5-00003) PAGE 7 OF 7 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 9113/2005 ' 12JY20/2004 16:18 FAX 60x6981960 CITY OF TIGARD ~ Attachment t0 City of Tigard Ordinance No. 05-1: Applicant's Statement PROCEDURE FOR BALLOT MEASURE 37 COMPENSATION CLAIM (3125 SW Hall Blvd., • Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 FAX 503-684-7297 CITY OF TIGARD The claim mast bo In wrlting and Include the i bri mation fisted below. The claim shalt nbt be considered filed until all of the requirements of the ` rocetlure are met. . • FOR STAFF USE ONLY:( 7.5°3 Use No.: 3 t7 ZO°~ t1u``'d 3 Application Accepted BY. ' Date; 4a~~~Q~ Date Dett;miined Gohlptete: - Deposit $1,000 (Deport to be refunded if dalrn Is determined to be vend. If claim is denied and ultimately determined trnaild, the clal mant shall reimburse the City for the costs the GNy Incurs in prGCessing the claim. If reimbursement emeeds the deposit, ft claimant shall pay any adds lortal amount within 30 days of a demand the City fci• full payment If costs are less than the de sk the ddference iNHI be rMnded to the claimant.) IDF-WnFlC00N'0F AFFECTED PROPERTY t~ Property Street Address/Location(s): Qe 'POP Tax Map & Tax Lot,(s): t- Subdivision Lot #(s): L b 6 3 . K S. `7'Du ~Aj AIM ~S CLAIMANT INFORMATION . d ~ Property Owners/Claiments(Deed Holders-, B Address: lys '7 9 Sb ~i.Jl~t ~OIJ Phone: JrO3 ~ -70 7,5-- CityJstate: rf:L.G G~ wt~~ G _ nF Zip• 701 ! (Attach list If more than one) . Date Claimant Acquired Property 7- 19 2- date Family Member of Claimant Acquired Properly Of applioable): Names and Relationships of Family Members that are.Previous Owners (if applicable): (Attach Ilst if additional space is needcai) Uen1SWW%y Interest Holders of the affected property: t V OIU Address: Phone; City/State: 71p: . (Ataoh list It morn than one) i *.When the owner and the 'applicant are different people,, all owners of the affected property must sign this, -application in the space prmvlded on the back of this form. If the affected property is owned by two or more persons and not all owners seek compensation, all owners who do not seek compensation shall sign a waiver of the right to compensation. I, AO-0/20104 1f3:18 FAX 8036981960 CITY'OF TIGARD 0003 REGULATION REX-MMING USE Identify the regulation that Is alleged to restrict use of affected property.. Provide a statement desmbing how the Mswction affects the value of the property. (Attach additional materials as necessary) VYt Pf'-. t H 011.0 01k ~?L~t~) b e S l 6S?3 ATI0 Atf P_60t<. L ~N 1 ~6 L , 1AJ lb e. o A-1-- Cc- Tne Y o-rrn~i~- zn~.~r~ <;i 19-0-j - t ,mot QL~ C4P tx~ MiA PREFERENCE (~GS')'T=cv?7dNS n Ou~.P~L 2~i rti<5 ~'L►aT t -eC-L coal - G o vii r►9~l2Ct a L vS~ . W St G~) Gozw P-Z C. 2 r C~'i W~Cr, Provide a statement of whether~c(simant prefers compensation.or a waiver, suspension, or modification of the regulation. ' . ~ ~ c~~ ~.e!' e ry~ ~ ~i~N?'~1~1~ c~ ~ • i to ~t J J* V01111 c, h e t- 9At.~s {~oR,w,iiT Include a statement describing the extent to which the regulation would need to be waived; suspended, or modiffed to avoid the need for compensafion: A description of the proposed use must be provided. (Attach additional rnatariets as necessary) W►yH X72 C~/. n PpiT-. g - G~x) VAR: I pas AMOUh1T OF.COMPENSA'TION The amount claimed as compensation Provide documentation supporting the amo iL Said d cumentation shall include a market analysts, appralsal, or other doaumentaftn at least epuivsl*nt to a market analysis. CiaknantW Authorized Representative(s) if ap igble. , C[) Q 0 a t^vue m _ FE-of S03- 007- 74X_S'__- • . . t ~~Q Vie- >070 ~-E- • . • , 6'03- sJ2--. ~'?~.7; - . SIONATUM ateach owner of the subject.property. BATED this a:a4 day of l4 6 41,, 20 owrioes Signature er's signature owner's $ionature. owner's Signature . F,I~W91n~ne6~slrawsedV~a~otmaacure87ckJrniorntdoc 78-D00-04 +JP+N sNVr.7~r t M."IX . 00 3btiLJ. t (At ~yy- tip, ~nn~ ~ j ~ S'td` • jLe- estjoeol OT: G82- 7 55 CC2*4 X479 a85-9283 ((5D3) 807 7 .U ne (509) 6860 sw goecwwn Rad~ess. ~ " rr•~ur. nt .JL7JDtl~lf4/ 1q.Lrr- YWY• 1ClY[ lFltlYl . nn~aaf;cnna , ~14 Fax rer pAGr 002J00; . _ $/6J2005: 10:0 . ' ~StAreal~t7~~7f~+~+sncrr~aanA~Pe/Are9t~+ 273 6W Cai?4 Stdte 400 +¢y f. p p a r~~ y~~ P~tmt~ m 3651 lmiw 4 ~ Ael j Far • (503) 790-7558. Michel><B ao(~$on; "fide . ' 7011 Free: (sou) 929.3651 DtreGt: (503) 790-1522. i Email: mloht>SOn~Rr4n.com order W. 7019.517632 Milo yen Tnvestme"t steal Estate August fly, 28135 Rd 686' SW 1100=A WHsom►lite, op, 97070 • Attn: 509 685.9283 : Fax Mo•: (503) 6821747 Phan No., ( } Email: Qr4,minary'I"jde Report • OahII14' # • . prendum S ' ALTA o,,,q SjbrK td;GonerdaB Prenium 8 . ObYera4~a LiakiliW $ . ALTAOwne~ Bdsrrdad Lk4IitY Raeidum # ALTA Lv+dels 5landar~ ~~9~ liabfurl $ "`n ¢ R $ 50AH l ALTA L;endas Extetded crnre4a~ [~st $ 5ppp Eft 100; ~1H 4A@.1 ' GovtServte Chatge, tb9t # odw to issue 1414: insurance Policy or t?oWes in the foim and amount sltotNn above, insuring We ara prepared descnbsd land: tide to t}ie following tan and stab' 19 1.6t 63, HAWK'S BMD'T~WPiHO MES. IR ~ ~ of Tigard f' courtly of V4Fashing ` . , OfE9on , and as of July 271 2005 at 8:00 a,m., title vested in. 1 Burton.,~►abhorn+ ' iarls, and stipulations,Mbich are ordinar3iy part of such Policy ferm and SUb~ to the excePtinns; e~tcius the following: _ hie: 1 x: Tomes Fior the fiscal year 2005.204b alien &e, 151k not yet Ts3 CY Len is, f aatsy+ of the city of I tha i tulnm of a ' J I shorm and is preljrorr to u paid. wo report is for ftdKdtsteeusa of rho pat'ttes Ma , mmi m W ins-rar- PX-V and slap pHpemevdd anlax GoRR is Issued and the M P UbfUntZU00 111:•L4 nGdbtl;ele4t; rUK17- VAN 1NVt5IMtN1 YAlat Y1d 8/6/2005 10':08 'PAtlE 003/005, Fax Sews., I ' . O~derp~.s 7019,si763ZPage~oF4 3. The assessment roll and the tax roll disclose that the within described premises Were specially ' . zoned or classified for Farm'usc if the land has become or becarnes disquallfled for such use under the statute, an additional tax or penally may be unposed. -4, Statutory powers and assmgmerft of Clean Water Services. 51 Easement, including terms and provisions contained thereip: Recording Information, May 5, 1989 as Fee No. 820392 In Rvor of., The Public • For.. Slope Affects; The Westerly 5 feet 61 Limited access provisions in favor of the State of Oregon, by and through its Site Highway commission as contained In Decree of Condemnation eltered March .3, 1992 in Suit. No. C90- 114CV In the arcair Court/Superior Court from Washington County, whlch provides that no right of easement or right of aaxn to, from or across the State Highway other than expressly therehi prnvlded for shall 'attdch to the abutting property, 7. Easekrnent'.brduding terms and'provislons contained therein: ; Recording information: March 3, 1992 as Fee No. 9201BI69 . For Siope,water, gas, electric...etal 8. Restrictions shown on the recorded partition plat 2000-W . 9. Easement on the recorded. plWpartr'tEon as follows: A public.' tl 4 easement and 6 private drainage easement In favor of Autumn Park Townhomes Owners AssocfaOon shag exist along all lot frontages as noted on the plat." 10. Easement on the recorded platlpanition as follows: "Ali boil fronting a public stret are subject to a landscape easelttent, coincident with the public utility easement, as -shown In favor of the CSty of Tlgard.° 11. Restrictions shown on the.remrded Platipertition of Hawks Beard Townhorhes. - END OF FXCE'P7ION5 - NOTE; Taxes for the year 2004^2005 PAID IN PULL Tax Amount' _ $64,036.222 Map No.. 1S133AC14500 Property IDr RZi21557' I Tax Code No.x 05X.58, . NOM- According to the public record, the following deed(s) affecting the property herein desciibed have been recorded within 12 rnonft of the effective date of this report: NONE NOTE Washington County Ordinance No. Z67, feed August 5, 1987 In Washington County, Oregon, lmposas a tax of $1.00 per $1,000.00 or flaaction thereof on the transfer of real property located within Washington C6urrty. • lrs4Rrn~l~ 7Ftlo ' nu/nWxelaa 119:14 SndbG"1l f4F! MIKt VAN 1NVLbIMLN1 NA(at 174 8/5/2005 10:06 IwE oDd/005 ...Fax Server R'o nbary Order No.i 7019-Si?632 . r Paae8of9• . Certain wnveyapces may be exempt from said ordinance, In whkh rase, Washinow county will require a correct and timely filing of an Affidavit of Exemption. For all. deeds[convpymm documents which are recorded (including situations to meet lender regyiremerds) either the transfer tw c must be paid or affidavit acceptable to the County must be filed. Situs Address as disclosed on Washington CountyTax Roll: Not assigned, Tigard, OR THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING FIRST AMERICAN TITLE! Va KNOW'YOU HAVE A CH6iCE! RECORDXNG MFORMATiOIV Flog Address: Washingrolt Cotmiy 155 North 1st Avenue r Mlisbam, OR 97124.3087 Recording Fees: $ 5.00per'page $ 6.0Operdocument (Fubric Land Comer preservation Fund) t MOO per document (OLLS assessment & T'mMon Fee) $ 5.00for each additional document title $x0,00 non-standard fee _ ffMAmPrkd771dd City! a0f 2000 10;X94' ArillboZ4 fY ( M1t\G VHIY 114YG711"YJ`{1 ' rH~ ea 8/512005. l0: 06 PACE 005/005 Fax aer"r, vrelhyditm deport order No., 7019.517682 . Plop 4aF4 Ars#AMO diCaft 7-1Me &0ZF MQ8 COMIMPYOfOW007 SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE ALTA LOAN POLMY (10/1792) T;W CotloWne mdtvm Re ► ad "m tam Ulecawmat OF ftpoas nad the omwitg wm notpay low or domnp , em me two or arporms r61)d1 trim by ,onion d: I, tit) ArM bin, adhetae a paranelehfal itpledltet Ire:►diw butnotfmAcd to bnikblfl aM mIthA bra arBrw+rv~r, a naRtl?tbut;) mtrklklp, mtAicel aoh0ru+a a rafltFaj io (0 Uro am,parq, lm4 a esrloymerd rklha 1Mdl (d) Not datadg, W lr•Wm d 81y ta4rrteMatrloel a hesterre9 lrwrmiad On N r , pu)n acpmrtlon h mwrr00 of n diMF h 4+ diner,9alocr amn of ffle W or My puad of AM the WO ka WLJ a pml; or (1►) ~rOMrntsdnlaottGb,ILar I dl~ ~ W ehY or EMan 4.rva; adhanam or yarelpmmml reptdl6Nrs erreept Eo the vAa„t tluR o mMm d Ne erdmoanNtt diM4nf er a notka of n tb+bd•. a ewldxsax la~tCnD rmm a tulwlml m a0epa vtilanan,4k<SDg 6,a fmla n®tM9l+amam h U,wpl6tEtuacrt~nfRgW a wrRa; (b) Any oo1m91>Cl M pain, pawatr tartsdldgl by (a) more, vbq*•fa IM emw lFA d DON of Um dfarebe drvwor or a nKo OF n dereet, bga or nntlauhrits ' rraatltG frog n vladlat W t~OvR,(a0t, wpm lyt Ynd hie been raocrdad h the rnblk rdeaffi atovln dPolrl: . ' Z Nphtt a(amifv+ dmtrlBt vrlrra,mtla of Mm ea,rrHn tltarrdhm ban rorludnd h Uta ptlM: rtratdl tR Ctlw d DalcY, Ml rwt n:eWdhp tram amk6pq rrty bddrgl • Phthhmocahedprla mpotedArlCYyAOdtuaddDehlktpylanUkfl~NlernpadbbUfarnlardlllgdkroidodga. .7.tfa(edrrAma.dY1919ranaer.odr8se~lltd~WOfhamalistsi . ' (a}an-raa4mrt~,aaw,rwaorop~tertfabytfatt?mideelmt~ (bl Irotklavat to the IARprart,notrleatdnd h olepUbA: rcmfdt atDrma d pO Y, batfaeowa m the hvaad dobnlntond n*dbfttd h mft m ft (ammmq by - ' Ute hwred ckkrailtD7br hr the rlete Ux bmrtd tlaAbdYlpe:arro m hwaa a,fkl' 9rE po➢gr , . (c trlWloq n no 1®.a dppu,~r fn Ne tiaUrrd chittiatC , (O; rtmd,l„p a a'et~td »tbssAtait In Dd„ of irobcy (crap) br 0u ttnyd OtatTlU9Dnp7 hwro the ptluAr oFUw Ilea of 6x, Mnr(t6 mo,~apoaiit a~ srandari art - fm.texvlm/, bdrm m MtYaael rr er tsdclfA hVrAnfR h dflorrl^d hmlh at tD „aay,orla)b fa Wont reveatDaa mnlx ede Uaabm ur ivnvAtm nt dnlo of ' pobgg.et (a) asrllkN h lMem cwt tN,ddrwtho-m hgm~pfeNed Nthn Ftme4tloNarlthadpald valid fm efm kMtred lpirtoiioe a fWt,n Nato 34a¢IP otracr ' 4. 17na,AMEe otftn bel+d I)a hand It,~Ja9w hamtra nr dm nmppy er fNlm aFNc btlteed artmn of paQq,rr fw nablppr of me 4d~ to com* %Oh eM applmhb vdobg t whime bmrorNt data h rltkh he Imtt Lcoumt e.. 5. h,vaAOat of wdnfmf Wkrf of U,e ire of dm tame) foots, a ddM J%wd,tebldt dotted met of Ifa Wftl04n OrWnw cl by Ilia karat hmttMftlmd h bleed • Wen 111147 n aw optamwr cam pmtwsbn a Irto h Mnbg Iran. . 6. Any f4a mot Mo for aareax idea or arewtah for Or cWm ofprk* OF my "ANY btn oar smrbb, Wr or a doW eye the km of Poe koeved rwartgcoe) ar vmrk enkdiq to h Led vvitMyt R ryhtradad fa and mmmmcid ftt&Wtaht to Min O(aathy and to mt lbxrtrid In v/We or in peby 7. mv dohn,kbp Bomarmft~Of mVie h6 den o biwA d the , rkn t kmmd by 0*fidow,, hp ramoi, of opar ftmi of fedecd kabupttSr s . . I* o pa*wyr,r ONW c edWars'rMls Wi%,fnt bbmad o,r t . 01tiRbms,dbnatrdblP+hwhlrvrltoylbtrnaacal~Qapenbntgrdearedoflrr,dlbxremtRtPrwoarratddinttpndtr,a - (W Viaarbgdbvebnelft iterntarlie t>cmedmatptpe mamo,katORrppPmlimOfV* baftcfaadbbRttd>arcilvmfjor " (el).Inatrmroen~vndnoUxedrrrtatdxtmnrdnldtPmpeehalnaekrrtxdaprtlmv,lYJlra~feratvpktlk7tlMp%6vradlrl•frmffw•IVaAtsb•OntlrfrM1mr. ' • (a) to uma4' rnolyd We A~tvowtaf bavWmi a _ . • 0,)of aadr fararrtMlrn b kteartMl'rrlta a Ixadxaer Fa valftof a ltrlpnerd a lRt aedipa. , • • ALTA OWNER'S POLICY (10/17192) Ibc (dlxAAtn cal am hW"* wrcUde6 ftmtha cocroae of ft" 4 crud U* Cnmm r vd notpw tort or dminme, m99, nMRicr 2vg aerpn'mx a age by comet . t. (a) Any Lsv, 8n9rudtm or Ouranl dMltw4tbm (ts9ift Wroor 1krAad to b{ ti ft,ard a rth0 fmM adtla:er_+ ar rg jknm4 ftNictM, rrgatdw. or TeMho to M ft m;pmq. eat; arr purr,t ortna bid; m 0m dteroaer, dtncmbm or )Donor dart h>aror umnano r or itmoebm traced at the kn4 (Mo tepa'allm h own * or a dimW in Due dtadAmta dreg dtie Wet v7 p" orvAo em lad h W ym o pp k er (it) tlNYmal,mFnlpranaitnrrr rile t(W of my rblaft d ihmn bW& aAhrmn of Paramp!<atrd rRlnlrtlbnvr eicq* b tltn aft% akin nb tt of dig mlbrueo nt lhCmd a n aogce of a dMect lon a mamdrfefree R% to from a v10100M a dnW Mlaklobn rdfndtq the Lard has bem tnald>d hilm Dtbm reom"Is All ft of pobey. O)) Any pm mattntd pnlm Dowd rot,gt OW by (t) Ave, t mcyt to Ote al(aa Ueda now oFffev wsaelaf f oof a a tetee of at rkhd, liar or.vvxdra,= usithD hm AvbWlaf or aeprd vbleft a Wft ftm itnd has bem vooufled h the pl;l* ratads at Coln dfloft. L Ryht'aofrndllehednrvdnm,h+tnotksaFB,warctebeyteaa<hmrtreaitFtWdxlhBmptrbtetW+hfl.DffitafP89CyibutrmletGet401g1iomesverapttArylgktrgt . rrhhnsac 1,redprerroWfadDalry+"dirmWbebt,dr,pmll'*f lfhdoFftamrfor v►avollbatioaAerip. 3. Defetz, Ana, ottamrbnnwr a*sft *bro, or olMr moles ' 01, . pgv,tad,o+ilMelf,arM a,ndatlveed to bl 0,c hatod olllmmh, > nrtkrmfvd to 414 Gamlvrp, natteWdrd n the prNk rmudsattbk MpoAr',hldlrarn Miler nanM ehhmfttfltl nrtdlaimCd h Wrttilp to Qm Domany by - ' thokww"Ac mmtpr"ViadateUbrauclelalmmtbacum. r hvndWhiff 4ihpo4y{. (d) rendlno bt 1fD boater dromp to the hlurad ddnwnd; (d)etbecf>bp or a"dd AlOae%*%ta D& arPolt r;cr (a) raft in kmar ctb=e Oath ViMM nothwe oadurgeq dt o tamrdclFl a had PM vatic fat the ew tc or h cp-%* oand h 6a* pt"; d. ft dab)„ ot,Ph ist"aitof ~tmrabeom umv n Om kmad IM caktn m M ft edrrad by Iidt Aoley,by rtam,of ow t*mUhn of bslonl - tatobmcy,mwhdlar trodltott'ttdedr letm,tll6tbbOted on: . ' ' . W .1)o trmNRttn aeudhp the ~o a bdetrat homed by b,b pa)y 6ah0 dna„ad a ItNdtdBtttmtrgxCd a fnRltbAt,e haialett a ' ' 00 ' (w) WInnuFureh )nt'emorftf hthe iemMePtedtea`totor fhbW rgttaY; Dalm.d. hrINpoky bhdnm*m ' odaKtfetenbltrmedvdtU6tNhwwdaloaBamtWmv,6et'rrndR6'antdw ' - (b) dsum recant ron In lamartntbog ton pttrlmrer far eodrd or n f unit Or burr molter. SCHEDULE OF STANDARD M=PTION5 T1m6LTAstmWodp,AgrrAmtamgGnnsduNhao9ihabahvrhp~atmptrdte UmnbrcMtnv, . t. Tad or asamamnhrvdtlm alt rwr.,dmm as e,dt m Iha by ttu few* d my Co 44NVty tiw corks win m r,eamtiwmb on redo D^Rr'Ity a by Oto vAk ,actdffiylytaerdtytMaAtCAaoAmr7rl,Htmdtst{tht~tom msetmaq,ts.err,obceortUdrirr~,ere.t4tWhaarotttmtmi~yBtersraMdsurfiepetpya - br Ut pubic rm=ta. 7. Any BrW, ('eltoar bilmra8r, a dated tthhh m, not dn,va` by 1fa rrwpt yaU+'dc htvhkh eouM M RrirA,tnd by 81t IfFDerJ)u d mid boar by whey Lrdtdry d . temuhpo-wrmomfeaear. tEavanmlh,-otmwdmawhattarnwmnixanam t411dt eat0=vbythePvblbrmm*,aVlRno mineydeimtre§&Vbornm tamptlaQtIn Mm dukes . 4. wMrrlom or r Photo a ko,fa aetvbwa, tblbm a mot rld tlOUft to W1Nkr a fieffl oa bmbw,d, My cW br W Ord me m" by do yabqc fioord& N rx-Pmcim ti s In h aadm wea,#-"W ham. maweimwdsv or im aft We WftntamQMM vmld Adom NMC. h EGMNC0PY0FlfMPCLr.VFORM CM )WILL DERWD1bFoIPMRBUW 17 L49Va.S+NJ • FirstAareir~g T7(le . w ®a f FkstAmerfcan 77ifeXasurance COmpanyOfOregon 4 ~6 r+r 1700 SW Fourth Ave, sin 102 Pond, QR 972M Phnn-- (5D) 222-3651 Fax - (503) 790-7858 MULTNOMAH COUNTY TITLE UNIT FAX (503) 790-7858. Title Offlcer: Michelle Johnson (503) 222-3651 MEASURE 37 WT BOOK SERVICE Mike Van Investment Real Estate Order No., 7019-517632. 6860 SW Boeckman Rd February 15, 2005 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Attn: Phone No.: (503) 685-9283- Fax No.: (503) 682-1747 Email: Re: y. F=ee: $500.00 We have searched •our Tract indices as to the following described property: Lot 63, HAWK'S BEARD. TOWNHOMES, In,the City.of Tigard, County of Washingbon and State of Oregon and as of February 9, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. . We find that the last deed of Mc6rd runs to Burton E. Grabhom We also find the following apparent encumbrances within ten (10) years prior to the effective date hereof: i. • The assessment roll -and the tax roll disclose that the within described premises were specially' zoned or classified for Farm use. If the land has become or becomes disqualified for such use under the statute, an additional tax or penalty may be imposed. 2.~ Statutory powers and assessments of (lean Water Services. 3. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: ; Recording Information: May 5, 1989 as Fee No. 89020392 In Favor.of: The Public ; For. Slope Affects: The Westerly 5 feet Lot Book Service Guarantee No,: 7019-517632 Page 2 of 3 . 4. Limited access provisions in favor of the State of Oregon, by and through its State Highway - Commission as contained in Decree of Condemnation entered Match 3, 1992 in Suit No. C90- 114CV In the Circuit Court/Superior Court from. Washington County, which provides that no right of easement.or,right"of access to, from or across the State Highway other than expressly therein provided for shall attach to the abutting property.' 5. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: " Recording Information: March 3, 1992 as Fee No.. 92018168 For: Slopewater, gas, electric...etal ; 6. Restrictions shown on the recorded partition plat 2000-007 . 7. Easement on the .recorded plat(parrtition as follows: " A public utility easement- and a private drainage easement in favor of Autumn Park Townhomes Owners Association Shall exist along all lot frontages as noted on the plat." 8. Easement on the recorded plat/partition as follows: "All lots fronting a public stret are subject to a landscape easement, coincident with the public utility easement, as shown In favor 'of the City of Tigard." . 9. Restrictions shown on the recorded plat/partition of Hawk's Beard Townhomes. We have also searched our General Index for Judgments and State and Federal Liens against the Grantee(s) named above' and find: _ NONE. We. also find the following taxes and city liens: r 1. City liens, if any, of the City. of•Tigard. NOTE: Taxes for the year 2004-2005 PAID IN" FULL Tax Amount: $64,036.22. Map No.: IS133AC14500 Property ID: 82121557 Tax Code No.: 051.58 In our search for recorded deeds to determine the vestee herein we find the following: Document Recorded Book Page Fee No. Warranty Deed January6, 316. 11 . 1951 Warranty Deed October 6, 86 045562 1986 -T_ 2 157 '72- . c(~~ rod E ~~h' • - , , RrStAmedwo ritfe No.: 7.019-517 ~ 3 ruaratUe Page.3 • tot Book` r . Vedescribedbo abo tothe and therefo e r " d-. made of the tide anon has b~ ar `trace aan ninat►on °f the examlr►y was iirnlted to o T a tttie reporti singe no mbran 7d~ Ba rvice and VAI no ;emental tHIS I5 rch for aPPa , t ers which might'have been ue su b our sea malf a is jeasure 3 W111 notinclptoperW. a000nat nnection W~ e for this service . listing" do tO include liability in co ereln.''the diarg tide. Wa assume ors Or, omissions reslwnsibled~ or other, services.. r reports, . 7 45q AMB~~c• . RrstAme rt*can 27de'Insurance'Company of Oregon An'asomedbusiaess uama ofTTP D=URANCE COMPANY OF OREGON 1700 SW Fourth Avmue Portland, .OR 97201-5512 Phone:-•(503) 222-3651' Thfs map is provided as a convenience in locaiingpropcrty ; First Amerloan Title Insurance Company assumes no'ltabR for any variations as may be disclosed by an achml survey Reference Parcel Number .1 S133AC 14500 aaoo -p to ale = too low 7s o a~ , 7aoD exao m 61°a°, y , y'~° / 27 i(^ : '~'K 7000 . 7MCf'x' ,cn C• ° ' 4 ae 4 x GpJ~ R 74W e~ soap ~15200 4 , Yj' o w ' 4&w cq%3 7660 40 7~ u`.~ rG 71M 7700 42 7WT 44 ^ r~:'1 ,r :;yJtJ B 4 xnoo LI] t~"bo sago +r ea = t ;t r xaoo z soot eaoo x .x. tt w m neon a Is 1-P *too °D eoso V) t 48 MOD x000 a 714DO nv '°V y r\ ee , m cea S fl Y •'ua~e m. z ~so'3t tom. x,87 ••('•a taro O k ew wooownDex„~uxa t 2 7aaD C c {em x 'Y. :t 'r, y` 51-85 to k 4 so UM ' 'F, 1 Q 'i ~ 181m a YT Da 9400 ~ Y ~Y R Y'' , atl is 1 am 200 :u'•'` SW a HAWK'S am s Qr~,e.";(,ft'..:". w; •'f '.t. ; X X. X. , . \Uhq\hUlNq\t,\\\\\\\ \\NU\\\\W\NWq\U SIN a"r i i, # :X X. Y; ya ,y ' J` : :•L :%t, ,r : ~ ti:; '#L :c• ~ ~{`;•r;+.`; r,' i; tti.^. ,i :~r, ~a~ ~ ' • a. • ~y' . t7ls 'r •'a:; x. .r. ; is ^'x ; i~, t ;k ?t. ~:'":a; f: ti r., ~ r. j " lr • S~ .r~q;' :5 .t :t~ x i jc :Y C x; i ;x; x :t , i t /7> i , • , , . v , . .:ti , . i(' :tk Cn adeo: y 4/28/2005 4:55 PAGE 004/006 Fax Server •++,7g•-•' i -~"'f+iit,G'~ts$",tal:'•J.~.° `^.'".~.•..'~'iASr.•a!..- @ . •~~.MaKNaUi-WARnall7KaieA`w ~ Rpm `•d? mrw ALL'^I[BAt ~ TH851e'PBSSS*rS;'plat'l/fo, -7Aio~3Ada„Rrab~En' n* 6~ ~ ' ' _,11'C.~d~+.0.AP1~1~ILr_•W~•'tr' _w.1 f..,al.and_.~..... f ~ . tl. N t. . . r . - ...r.....,'~'...:r..4.nw.~wi..w..~r...,•+.~iwa.r ' ~t • ' ~ ' _t •y.._, ' r•aw"'Z r_, ~ ._._.....,.~...w.,,,,..... ' _ 1. Li i . ' la ml(M fMt~Otl'at...:Ri~~.• : wAA, u iw:. afR,f .1_ • 3 , V e".n~...e w~~"~•regU"~re~` i }~i1L~ pfilhLRl..i.f~lob..3 p35. a«r.~ ~ .•L. no 4i ` -.tfafd bY_---•s'*!u=~','~h.r j]rO.'.~_e»» ..,....,w.._.,-...rL:...u.:".•*"'?'".""""""" ~Ol''t? 'c 'ila.M,^bereby Drpri't, 6e rd'11Andtomay." ta6i 4 E..13Wfd1QY .~QN Mom - w•rEw:,.:,:,G...:J:.:t....,.~. ~....,.w:+p-•...r,.::~.~ ' :...»~".•m•:«sia,..nw~..•+r.•w•-..,q•pwuw: C i _ _ _W h~ s »r ' belts al tt, eft fho (aflosrf icat liraparty' 1Wt4 Iha tensmMh, ' hitad(fmsiaboad'wpyvitmaneaa,•sifudedlp Il%Cannfy ol___.Mr,~._n-•......,~_..,...,,.....a_rnf StalO _ ' 1 is laavJtA' Of'Ot6/a+LLowrdrd a90 gddaarlbcd all lop. PAItpEL 1'y Lois f ~ILLAtiU' A` VA3t `";~HU7t1'WP. si AdT, d`n, tria . VOun by . or ' ~ , i ;14as¢is~ten-etti! Btate off" Oreaotis ~ ~ ' ' • • - • ' ;!'AftC&L 11'r' lA,~?ar@ of thn Olt 'onb• t W- er._tho ditat.•ove`•h'a1f o7 Section 33' ~orhtahto,i IIauthf B;snra 1deAt.at.'tbs 16!.it.,Clashin$tlmrcotusty,• nr'onl~ , ' awris: particularly described ae `rO13-0lrs;, PeginnfnK U.56.xhatna Seuth.of AA quarter aschion ep,rner on t}ms'ttort , no of ,aaih section ~anq An'the dforth`and bouth canter U69 of:said seoti it s • a nolnt at-the most It'e11111erl7 ficuthWe°t aornor••of'p traaL'eonveyed.,Eo' ra C.,H, VenKleok and ux,. by. dedd recorded in book 69,• po>;e hOb, . uho 30t 1U05 ; _ Asted•January 1n 10-03.t •kl.enex:Ncuhh along said North and,taut~ eit:ttter k section line, 20, 7 chains to'the .ts•:its'or nP said unotitlts :Chence 'evntinui'h .'South+'alonri saiis tifitic, spetionline 10 ehpihs, tiionoe East on' a' line : parallcl,with the East anB'Post eenter'3:ine oY aaid'Sgetion. and t:ortih of Lot- 4., Ash Valley 'lertlot 12' chato utiol, om ha. W&4t,line.af::.a;.tract• : J ~ , - Danve;f~d•bd'-,rdSn'i' `8ooies'i et'uiE, sad rscot' W i»•book 291, #ia e b56; Dedembor r2{ 10 , •thariee Korl h ;(sarall9l _lvi6}s' the said Agrth. and i §outt. ionter IOn along the-Vent; li.ns o*.'sifid 8oali'i*gmot %A''hatns,`, . •t)ayn a,Eas a2?1!S-Xhe, said,!,,f it and •'~ie'st rdnkot' eeotlbn line std' ifo/ig 1• c klia` lto3LtnTlilia 16 inth Sob)As trgeti • A,. ghaino te' the k:iwlina of W. . :.Wait -eind hajr,o"_~he haet tiner~SS1C of •sald ae'ct'ibli't: thence North 'naralial i; wibh said MnrOh drill :.outfi section centnr< line'astll,aibnq the~lest`~inb`or - .i• a:.track. opnvayad o-Vincenb.4sW by claed 'penordad Cfa' bdq$' 225 rare 848 %r Aecember'12,1~i43, 13.3t1'ahat'sa to`lfiifitea dantar• of hails Tdr{'y iond• xllena ' South 70fttoat.simp. thd•'denter'eiff, said roa4•14 4Q chains to a poihi on 's 5 j . Etta most Raatei'!ly 2a-st ltfjk-aatd'Vaq*.R1„ck •t1'aat; thanes North 18.60 ohaine alonD the said 116W''(deait boundary lie)' tc a p^.int on r`•.1a rmat re 'satlk,Van K1&tk tracts t9^ocd goat ;'pslians ao!?d pKurt' cpl tloisth It-tilt a C ri a ,pth Unb,V) at 1pa: to-we Sosnl:'of uatlnrtlri , rti ihehir7~to1+`` r' f l' • ~~114ra O11d Ib+HOb u10 a}MVO ~ ~{`7af~•'PafalfraR Yn10'ff10j1~.•...:•.+ir,~..=r-.L+». •..-:w... i' `b~p ^ • rtes S: r lu • «-.,....„...~,•iw_....,..,,,.««..« .».a.,.:.....,.,.._:..,.,.~~....,,.3.~+c~'`rr--•-:...-,aefr'aagdaifly'at`ferxartr. ~ (',,t. a6ara •rlaa+ed do,.:.., eararwat 18 amt a+ilAllu a6ava'namesl 14aafao. »..,.~,L1.:,.,. ..w . 7lei,s'md A+ul~ru ' Ane Ihst. lYa.trl+ '._,Jawwly mrad hies dumb at the a6bvu dta'ntld•ylaalisas, ww on mwft . ,6uaacesl ~'z _ .t draafaJ.prsrgl+m are i(m Gam erl *mud .t....'•..-+aa.......rT .:F.:«"}C.«~f.{'.i:•C tic;?:w• ""',_'„°N;a^:...,~,,..,..t•FL•t;•.•trr•'_` ..i. 5 51 ' ;r ana ~.u'.S_. w,~l•Y~..- ~'.'.i~":•hei'_'examaaxs'and,RdafJl~Ntsfa>s,'iMp'fV4fsantafd'lotatrot~•:• ' i drfm;d isle :¢mif ~ravlfpq,y,mo&ut, call wiry Pa+f snit ka~l tharoofi aMu>:t the taN ~uYalofa'st cell ddnrmxls + s a(a6.Wnwm~leeaueever, . w.» ....,,f ffiflnnL_~4id~~ . ~lssrat~...•r+ad tsat0,,. lh►t-.,.82..w•day d . n .n,.,,. ~ . . CseepuFd to t5i Fa¢,erav ol`~' , . r ~ , ' • ,1 i ' do" t ~,'-r"•,°"":.•r:•w .,..~r`n.37_'...,.~•...r...,:. s ...Y•!•,...••~•ei:,':L'..,. 41- 4/28/2005.4:55 PAGE 005/006. Fax server •1®I - !J' ~A: Y 7wM _w,laf.~ M.T "L.r t V-•• S{I..n ~ nv-5F- ~M Klf }.il' m+ . 20- " ..,s •~t ~byApgOF;,O.RP•.oON:;q'•;,•' • y,•,• •1 •`F. r t ~ - , ' ~ ' p: ` s•'n »tiY». • .t^:" r.:i. • ~:r .Li p t .Co~lfdvnf...~YIPQtnn»,,;v,.:./k, ry'• _r;+; rl, ' ~j: vIk 10 t ~ ~ t•~~B$'I@'r R&MEdt$$BECf•TAv! on;lhir,„.:..~.5::..~,».:dny dsrn~••$}~.,.~{%$,~.~.Q.Ry} • c~'v ~ • 7 .f»".•. ss ,ti,..firfvrdasl.fluditBuif(iNd,mlPrYnryPublk'in:a~afaeytdaCnf/n nfld.8fv~e,,po~gfWJy A5a!•1ti~q: . li..~ BI:a~ril~ho ant k~ia[1°a.a1'~'»11kR~19 ad1L.»~...w `~"t ~t x • :.1....:.._.•..... ' ':.'-•»Lrt..r:..:..:,....1.. ' •»'7t"*x:::.~1'1'»•; 1»;n.s. w«»»,.....«:.».»....1«~«. - ]aofyn to mo to d4 the idenikni ~ndirldunl».'r?•deierUted 17 elgl who nxat•Ifted'~~•w1/Nn lat(wmem and. :.0801. the w ; admon&daedte'rne'that 'Y : ft.?rdd~t o'MrVbMIISW', c i• Lc fl `i - • • iN rP.STY1bONY we6Raort'• Y'ltnw herqunio r+ekfllj' hniH artd.dpxedl ~ ' eea{1lgf-#AY a68;Yti~ 1nN•e6evnSrrircaFi 1;. 1"• - l~ „t ! r r ` , Nvlmy 1'+ibNv w p~ s, ;f ,r • :"f' ; .AfySwninhy!dnvXplreR:».•.~lr'~-iy~...L~J....,.:.a...t.t,,,;... y~: f` •5• r 1 - ti• t. =t«fr:. , .i.• aka , .r Rio-9' _jj I - : - ,v••• • ~:!1TAT6 ~'Gf!v<rVa it...ai,F • A Fhl ~ { , • ' t ,nq• ~ - ••tL' •.i~n?~'~rWnlln-Aron".:~~••` 1 y11 ~ r , oad~~~~p9l+MCa[~AuOtf,llem ;v t . . ' ' : ynpnp~lvfaW oolYlq~,tlo lMtNrrl~k' rS.'p _ • mdJO~mfdedNOCbhel~lrrOgOlt~nl6 "ii.i , ..1 : ~ ppiuif W.►ulan.~dor~t •k 1 1,.1• ' c .y . Auuinnfd unfl :i Cr } t 13, ymtft f Mike Van InvestmentReai'Estate 6/10/2005 Burton Grabhorn 14577 S.E.. Anderson Road Clackamas, Oregon 97011 RE: Your 10.5 acres in Tigard, Oregon Dear Mr. Grabhorn, At your request, I have prepared a market analysis of your property referenced above. As you are aware, I am not a Real Estate Appraiser and this analysis should not be construed or interpreted as an appraisal. I am a licensed Real Estate Broker in Oregon and I do specialize in listing and selling development land among other investment types of real estate. My market analysis is based on the following assumptions: " 1. You are successful in achieving a, ballot measure 37 claim with a result of a v -waiver of all zommg restrictions imposed on the property or adopted-by governing agencies since the date you purchased the p'rope'rty. (September 22, 1952) 2. That you are successful in obtaining permits as needed, if any, to develop the property into a commercial retail shopping center. 3. The property would be placed on the market for a reasonable time period, advertised and exposed to buyers through direct mailings and internet website" postings -Sincerely, Mike Van Mike Van Investment Real Estate 6860 SW Boeckman Road Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 " Office: 503-685-9283 Fax:.503-682-1747 Cell: 503-807-7555 Email: MVINVFSMENTaol:com 6860 SWBoeckman,Rd., Wilsonville, 97070 • Phone (503) •685-9283• Fox (503) 682-1747• CC$# 147989 \ E-mailAddress. A0Z2ESTMEN7@AOLGiDM • Gel (503) 807-7SSS Mike. Van Investment Reai Estate Burton Grabhom Property Comparative Market Analysis J. Lot 63, Hawks Beard Town homes City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon - Property Description: 10.5 ± - acres that is bordered on the North buy S.W. Scholls Ferry Road, on the West by S.W. 135' Street, on the South by Hawks • - Beard Town Homes plat,'lots 1 through 62. The property is currently zoned R-25, medium density residential. Access is available to the site from S.W. 135th Avenue on the West, Hawks Beard Street on the South, S.W. Huntington-Avenue neat the Northeast corner of the property. Additional access should be available from S.W. Scholls Ferry Road for a xight in,' right out access for east bound traffic. A previous lawsuit/condemnation issue with the Oregon Department of . Transportation was resolved with a provision that ODOT would not object : . 'to such access if it was approved by the City of Tigard. Topography: Gently sloping form North to, South. Flood Plain & Wetlands: The land is not impacted by or within a flood plain, nor are any wetlands present. Current Value: In April of 2003, Grabhom sold just less than 4 acres that was ,a, portion of this site for aprice of $337,000.00 per acre. Since that date, he has received an offer to purchase from the same buyers, a 4 acre portion of the property at a price of $400,000.00 per acre. A liberal value on the high end of the price scale would be a value of $500,000.00 per acre or $5,500,000.00. Proposed Use: -'The owner's proposing a neighbor hood shopping center. Domestic . City of Tigard water is available to the site. Water: ! . 6860 SW Boeclanan,Rd., Wilsonville, 97070 - Phone (503) 685-9283• Fax (503) 682-1747• CCB# 147989 .l-=Utlddress:A059 STMENTY) OL-COM. -Cell: (503)807-7555 Mike 'Van Investment Real tstate • - . ' ~ Sewage Disposal System: City of Tigard sanitary sewer is available in Hawks Beard Street. Electricity: Portland General Electric. Storm ' Water: City of Tigard storm sewer lines are available near Hawks, Beard Street. Restrictive Land Use Statutes:. City of Tigard R 25 residential zoning sign code,.access restrictions if any, and overlay zones or tree cutting ordinances if any apply. _ Value.if. Proposed Use is . Allowed: See the attached market analysis prepared by Mike Van, Broker; Mile Van Investment Real Estate. Claim for Damages: $4;562360.00; : Owner Preference: Waiver of all land use ordinances adopted by the State of Oregon, Washington County,:the City of Tigard since the date the, owner obtained , title that prevent construction of the shopping center. 6860 SW Boeekman Rd- T3 konviile 97070 - Phone (503) 685-9283- Fax (503) 682-1747• CCB# 147989 E-mail Address: ltilyllVyEST]VIEN7{a~ OL.COM -,CeA: (503) 807-7555 Burt Grabhorn Property .SW 135th Ave: at SW Scholls Ferry Rd. Tigard, Oreogn Comparable Sales/Market Analysis Pro # Descri tion Acrea a Size Sales Price Price er S q. Ft. Date of Sale ' 1 Westside of 72nd North of Dartmouth, 3:15 Acres - $2,436 358.00 $17.76 4/16/2000 Nei hborhood/Communi center site Tigard, Oregon: Reimbold Propeftles, Buyer 2 8585 SW Cascade Ave: 6.71 Acres _ $5,400,0 00.00 $18.47 9/29/2004 Beaverton, Oregon strip. center site NSHE Cascade LLC,- Buyer 3 Northside of SW Beaverton-Hillsdale 1.58 Acres $2,100,000.00 $30.51 Oct. 2004 Highway just West of SW Griffith Drive, Beaverton Oregon Bank Pad. Buyer was Wellsfa o Bank - 4 3585 SW Hall blvd. 2.14 Acres $2,700,000.00 less $28.96 Feb: 2004 Beaverton, Oregon $50,000.00 demolition Buyer was Hall Street Appliance,. LLC costs, or $2,650,000.00,,. 5 Subject 10.5 acres as a community or" 10.5 Acres Projected conservativei $22.00 Not Sold neighborhood shopping center at $22.00 per s ft. or (457,380 s q. ft. $,10,062,36n-nn The projected current value as zoned is $5,500;000.00 . The projected value as a shopping center site is $10,062,360:00 The difference in value is $4,562,360.00 06/08/2005, 13:22 503646B425 MOH PAGE • 10 W side 72nd1N of Wirt noltth published Tigard, OR 979.23-8655 Neighborhood/Community center Site of 137,214 SF Sold for 12,438,356, buyer Rembold properties ( LL•G ) c/o wayne C. Rembold 1072 SW salmon $t Portland, OR 97205 Photo N/.Ap, Lmd Sale . (sot) 222-725$ eellar Wlnoo Foods c/o Gary R. Plva Vol data _ we Date: 04/06/2000 Sala Price: $2,436,358 Escrow/congba: 2 years . Status: Corkflrmed . . Days on Market: N/Ap Down Pmnt: *4436,358 4ftnge: Tax Dfrrd . Pct Down: 59% Conditions: None Doe N61 00037608' Zoning: C*61Tlgard Trans Tax: ' 02,437.00 ) Frontage: S99' 72nd (ea). Submarket: TIgaid Topography:. Laval . • Structures: Notre Land Improvements: Finished lot. Offsit'es: All to site lot Dimensions: LnUlar Comer:. Yes comp Ho: WAC-42177-05-0020 Property Type: Commercial Land Intended Else: To Construct a shopping ranter ; Income/mense Ilsting broker Gross Acreage Net Acre age RAbon Niehaus Co. - - 4380 SW Mecadam Ave Ste. 41,0. Acres, $.xSO N/Av Portland, OR 97201 Price/Acre; $773,447 N/Av (SOS) 29$4791 SF: .137,214 NjAv Bob Niehaus Price/SF:. 517.76 NJAv buyers broker Robert Niehaus Co. 4380 SW Macadam Ave Ste. 2111, ' Portland; OR 972Q1 .(503)295-3791 Bob Niehaus financing iat Flat! Seaaril'y Bank( Corn;. VIP, due in s yrn 581/Pmt: $41.992,500 2nd (due In Lyra) Bavpmt: *1,009f9co eepwty)un 1996-2wz W,ftr warty XB"Kden. Ut- 0W ARMF rmaMIL U nM06ft tbrApwd tmm.ounu d" na+ 1.u)h01* but not "mne.aa. Pb-., L04ol Zoo-sued ' MOH PAGE 11 56IB81~1885 13:22 5036468425, lat ma Map: 6H6-a/3 Lapp SL`4 set 36 T&S RSW W.M. Camps No: WAS}4Z%97.06-00?A panel Rsimper: R2036293 •RMe CAS Chltayaa T1t1e 6 I A ~ 's ~ yf•W M+f4 qrA ~Jrl IIIts~ tnP' t91p a3 ; ~ y ' r s t 'tftr b k ~ A ..ant uef @n ~.~f 3 JT,RE'T N+.K "Pit A-t r ' ~ pus ~ f slta me - , PACE 12 MOH X6108/2005 13:22. 503B4sB425 i Sw Lo usC Sw But ' a- w s stire to 1 ( 1 • - e~~ ^ +d, c ~~~4 sw~t~g 'Way I ~ •T • ~ ti•ti ~ ~AT ~ a~ Of C lp% trfrknisrss t t ' ..j 6! ' V. Dr aa taMrmatton contained ev- [ " ® the aoouracSr T of any • haw sYm ntaa fs detrWad (rata MapQuesecon+ tnu Ko opinion re expressed nccrning . herein. ` c 06/OWOO8 13:22 8036468425 MON. PAGE 13 descriDti4h Financings r 1st Firat Security Bavk $4,992,500 COASi.; VIR, due in 1 yrs 2nd 51;0001000, due in 1 yre, * BxvhanR*: Thir was the 00IL"Is 4.0mY►leg iri at 1031 axohange. Total Aeaessed: $679,210 Year Anegaeo: 1999 Doc NtuO xransfcr. Tax 00027608 ($2,437) . Recording bate:'04/06/3000 Confirmed by: Narla Xiranda ' Datsr OS/x6/Z000 Emilt yunlitycontrn16cosrtar.cow Phone: (888)636--8389 • agdatoa Date: OS/t9/2000 1 11610812095. 13:22 5036468425 MW PAGE, 02 8585 SW CaSoade Ave PublIshed Tycot%newmaster. Bldg (16neNy) ' 90,611 Bsavert m, OR 97008 -7178 Strip Center site .(portion) of 292,288 SF Sold,for $5,400,000 buyer NSHE Cascade, U,C T c/o Randy Kyte 1121 5w Salmon st. Portland, OR 97205-2000 (sob) 242-2900. - Photo N/Ap, Land Sale - sgJler . _ _ - _ Hall Street Aseoclata, UC c/o ]oser Diamond . 3301 Monte Ville Pkwy . Bothell, WA 98021-8972 ' (425)489-9899 " vltai data Sole Date: 09/Z8/Z004, Sale Price: $6,400,000 ESCrow/Contract: 270 days Status: Caq,fitrtled bays on Market: - 240 days Down Pmnt: $5,400,000 Exchange: No Pet Down: 100% Conditions: Expansion Doc No.. 04113044 Zoning: GC, Beaverton Trans Tax:. (¢6,400.00 j . - Frontage: 4001 SW Cascade Ave Submaricet: 237 Condor/Beaverton Topography-. Sloping Str6ttuures:193,000 SF Ind Bid (Teardown) Land Improvements: Fully Improved Lot Offsites: All to site Lot Dimensions: Irregular' Corner Nc Comp No: WAC-47637-%0-0420 Property Type: Commercial Land Intended Use., To expand they adjacent Cascade Plaza Shopping Center, income/expense listing-Broker Gross Acreage Net Acreage GVA Kldder Matheuva . ' ' Aces: 6.710 N/Av I Sw Columbia St ' Price/Acre: $804,769 NrAv. Portland, OR 97258 -2002 , (503) 7214300 SF: 292,28$. N/Av Mark D Fraser, 9xOR" . PHce/SF: $18.47 N/Av buyers broker . None involved per principal financing Nat'Aopliaable - all bash sale aeppa9Mtm 7909-2001 tb6tsr neaRy xnrereutlan, ins. Au dptm ranrwe: D tenaatbn obmnea fee: xerp} doomed venabae sue "it 9ue*aKaae.9Aeniu r9xq) 2os-~6o - 06/08/2005 13:22 5036458425 MOH PAGE. 03 " plat map Map: 424-G/7 Legal: Por NW4 see 27 T1S R1W WM bogotherwith easement For vehicular and paAesp1an egress/Ingress utulty Inatath Comps No: WA"707-10-0420 Parcel Number: R02400;t8 TWO Co: Tk*rTltle IS127AD-0010.0 • ~ M ~ 1 4 r J `"ter-^•... ' r ~+.F `1 E Site map 06/09/2005 13:22 5036466425 MOH PACE •04 7. 1, Oli, .4, 2 th7"~ d . Ln ; Sw hF~iE~rsw St r T 7 er- to 1~ di Sw Cin us 4 lg- F , +"y! !iY P11Yk ,f "~4, i~•... a F r H....~.V. n.. ' ~ ~t .J ~ 1. :::":••"S':.a';C1~,::.~•', r I;LA C ' b ri•- f~ o mew S f; "0t ra J glop .~kA`fn.St t^Z--i.~ „L..~' . !may • DGS M Frt • W Yes ~ i ~ . 'Chas FFtO map is derived WOO MepQU"Lcom Inir. No optnlon Is expressed coneeming the accuracy at any Information nontaFned herAFn.• 06/08/2005 13:22 ~'503646B425 -MOH PAGE 05 " descriptloR " ad$itional contacts Additj6n *&l Listing Broker "ty Durant (503) 644-9400 Listing broker reported that prior to sale tbere WAS ground wat= contihination issued on subjectproperty, groketr reported nen*r.and all surrounding prapertAOG had to fund a 30 yrar Oleanup,project in that area, Seller paid for oasts of remediation prior to.sale bot the'cleanup_wat' rtill.ongoing at time of sale- Listing broker reported these contAminaticn issues-lowered the value of tht lend. Property fronts railroad traoks to the west. " Sale Price: 9uyor reported sale price was gAtirely for land.value only and that there wan no ipecific gilocation of the price yktid for'thd existing building. " Topoarsphy: Listing broker regorted'pr9perty.s1opes to the pies(. * struotuream At tiuuis of sale there was a 193,000 b'F Industrial building.. = Building was a former Tyco/ViBwmaster facility but bad been vacant prior tc sale- B;Okor reported buyer will be paying $550,000 in droolition coats for the buildingr. Please refer to costar serial #.G.7im fox additional. buildings information. • Listing Broker:' Akfttional Listing broker %mr.'aaty Dureat.with Traftell Crow, 15031 644-9400.. + APRs Wvp & Tax,LOt 315127AD0-0100 Doc N um J Transfer-Tex 04113044 (85,400) Recording nato: 09/29/2004 Q-9-T-Rl.AD-27-01-01 C=firmed by: Josh LebMan 06/06/2005, 13:22- 5096468425- MOH PAGE .-27' APB? . 5 2095 gale No. Codex OCLS-1729 (LK Map No.: 625 Locatiorn North side of S.W. Beaverton Hillsdale Highway just west of S.W. GrilJfith Drive Beaverton County:. Washington City-, Legal Deseript ow Tax Lot 1200, Map 131 W 15AB Grantor. Anita K MCGIM Grantee: 'Wells Fargo Bauk Date of Sale: October, 2004 recording: 04122739 Sale Plies- . $2,100,000 Y'@Ctndt: CMh Cash Equiv. Price: $2,100,000 Site Size: 188 acres or 68;825 sq.ft: Price/SdY1 $30.57 zoning: RC-E (Regional Center Bast) Access: Ibis is a pad site within the Beaverton Town Square shopping oentiT ' which has direct access from S.W. Beaverton-Hillsdale HighWay Shape. Basically rectangular Topography:, Level Vt1lioties: All available Confirmed By: George Maooubmy, listing broker at HSM Paoifo Realty, Inc. {503-245-1400} Exposure Tithe: Property was not available for sale.. Plans were to develop,thwsite with a 20,000 sqA retail center and during the process of pre-leasing the proposed center: Wells Fargo Bank approached the owner about purchasing the property.: ' Comments:: This is a pad site within the Beaverton Town Square shopping center. The site is asphalt paved and bad been used for parking. Wells Fargo Bank purchased the site to build a bank branch n 'T'his property previously sold in June, 2001 for $1;300,000 or $18.89 per sq.ft , Although the sale closed in Jerre, 2001, the. price was reportedly agrced'to in January, 1998. This sale/resale reflects an appreciation of 61.5%. 06/08/2065 .13;22 5936468425 MOH PAGE 28 NEW' AA~t , S 2 - . I~~d SsIg No:. • Cade: OUS-1731 (Chin Map No.: 62S . Location., 3585 S.W. Hall Blvd; Cify: l3eayeiton County. W4shiapft Legalriessrfption: Tax Lot 1500, Map 1S109DD Grantor: I'1JW Properties, L LC Grantee! Hall Street Applianwe, LLC Date of Sale: February, 2004 : Recorftg:. 04016653 Sale Prise: $2,650,000 Terms: Cash -Cash Equiv.Trices • $2,700,000 ($2,650,000 t demolition cost of $50,000) . Site size: 2.14 acres or 93,218 sqft' ` Zo~niag: ~ CS . Access: S.W. Mn Blvd, BLspe: Slightly irregular-but primarily rectwg:ilar Topography: Generally level Uti1Stie9: ,Ali available Confirmed 13y: Oeorge Lampus, Real Estate hwestment Group (503-222-1655) Exposure Time: '816vexalyears Comments:. _ This is the former Copeland Lumber yard situ located along the north side of Hall Blvd., a short distance east of Cedar Hills Blvd. At the time'of sale, the.site was improved with a 16,927 sq.fl; building that was a retail uait for Copeland Lumber with a showroom, warehouse area acid office space" The improvements were constructed in 1964 and were expaaded in 1981. The sites zoning is CS, Community Commercial, which allows a wide range of commercial uses. It was purchased byo on entity of Standard TV & Appliance who intended to tw down the. existing buildhiS and replace It with a new i retaz'Vwarehouse building. A sale,price of $2,700,000 had been negotiated and was'rEduced by $50,000 for the estimated costs to demolish the existing Improvements. • 12/20/2804 18:17 FAX 8038981980' CITY OF TIGARD 001 Planning .Division 13125 SW Hall BoulevaM . Tigard, OR 97223 . (503) 639-4179 CITY OF TIGARD Fa)t To: Mark Van Frome Cheryl Calnes . _ I Feic. 503-681-1747 Pages: 3 Phone: Dater 1212,OP004 Re: McMra37 CtaWm Form coy Phone:. (503)639.4171' x 2451 E3 Urgent' 0 For Review E3 Please Comment ❑ Please Reply L7 Please Recycle all. all 1; fit . ; R~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ egg ~gq ~ •'~~~g ~ ' ' r~ s ( < M 5 B . f J1 lot sill 4 4 .`s4 L R r R g . ' C 11 1~ •p'•) f i„~ 3%w om.mg rs snie mo.waa - y`Wk y\ `l R A; A N A I A 1. A A A R. R• i T O Q6 r t f F A A 4. C 7 Y O 3 0 II. W n'~ U r. N gg Ci . yibi~r xocau~nx - I F-•'a'? 1 QOR_ .°e \ t 9 s i 2 A K a i i a ti s$ §p _ . I md. W3`o. d 9k Z • - c, lxt t ec a~~ ! r CL N rv tt, 1 all 29 a g~. AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING September 13, 2005 - 6:30 p.m. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 6:30 PM r • STUDY SESSION > BRIEFING ON MANAGEMENT GROUP COST OF -LIVING (COLA) AND COMPENSATION ■ Administration Staff . > DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL RETREAT ■ Administration Staff • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go' into Executive Session to consult with counsel about current or potential litigation under ORS 192.660(2) (h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions', as provided.by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the. purpose of taking. any final action or making any final decision., Executive Sessions are closed to the public. > ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS N Receive and File - Fifth Tuesday Meeting Notes b August 30,, 2005 X City Attorney submittal of revised findings - Agenda Item No. 6 - see attached. Changes are in Items Nos. 6 and 16. .D Receive Written Testimony for Agenda Item No: 7 -.Measure 37 Waiver Hearing - September 7, 2005, Letter from Charles T. Wilson 0 Rules of.Procedure'- Measure 37'Claim - see attached. City Attorney will review during the hearing - Agenda Item No. 7 9- Discuss Date for the Joint Tigard-Tualatin School District and City of Tualatin Meeting (October 3, 17 or another date): City of Tualatin will. host. Ask City Council for agenda ' item ideas. League of Oregon Cities Conference, November '10-12 - Hilton Eugene 8t Conference 'Center. The theme this year is:, "Cities: Leaders Live Here." 9 Jillian Walker will give the Tigard Student High School Student Envoy Report (Krista Foltz is unable to attend) - Agenda Item 3 (first bullet) 0 Receive Information on Shooting Simulation Machine -'(See attached e-mail from Joanne Bengston to Cathy Wheatley) 0 Remind City Council of Dinner with the Indonesian Delegation, September 26, 2005, 6:30 p.m., Hunan Pearl Restaurant 0 Tonight is Rob Williams last meeting as the Tigard Youth.Advisory Council President. Mayor Dirksen to make presentation during Council Communications (Business Meeting), Agenda Item 1.4. Council Calendar -Next Page Council Calendar: j September 11-18 Sun-Sun Family Week Celebration 13 . Tuesday Council Business Meeting.- 6:30 pm, Town Hall 20 Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 22 Thursday Citizen Leadership Series- 9. Sessions, Thursday evenings 26 Monday Indonesian Delegation Dinner _ 6:30 p.m., Hunan Pearl 27 Tuesday Indonesian Delegation Reception -.5:30 or 6:00 (time TBA) 27 Tuesday Council Business Meeting -'6:30 pm, Town Hall 30 Friday Council Strategic Planning Retreat - Noon, 10305 SW 87tH Avenue, Tigard; Oregon Executive Session - The Public Meetings-Law authorizes governing. bodies to meet in executive session in certain . limited situations (ORS. 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or ' part of a meeting of a governing body, Which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes-for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers; employees and agents, if the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660 (2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660 (2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660 (2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660 (2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660 (2) (f) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192-660 (2) .(g) - Trade.negotiations -involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192:660 (2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation' likely to be filed. 192.660(2) 0) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives 'to be used in. evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660(2) (j) - Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding- proposed acquisition, exchange or , liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 192.660-(2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board.' 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. 1Mdm%oathytcouncihpink sheet - study session egendast2005\050913•doc Transcription of 5th Tuesday notes by Sydney Sherwood &:.Tom'Woodruff,- Facilitated by wda;. Stacie Yost August 30,' 2005 at the Water. District Auditorium Council Present: Mayor Dirksen;:Councilors Wilson, Woodruff, Sherwood and Harding, Start Time: 7:00 PM End Time: 8:00 PM. h Sign in sheet: Name Address Topic. Roger Potthoff 11710 SW Ann Street Walnut Island Sewer Extension Mary Potthoff 11710 SW Ann Street RE 'Land Use/Zoning on Walnut. Lauri Hansen 8960 SW.Oak St. Skate Park Matthew•Minzgor 8960 SW Oak St. Skate. Park Tanner Mace 6335 SW Nehalem Skate Park Tanner Green 14125 SW.97tn Avenue Skate Park Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Pl. Verizon damage to sidewalks Tristan Larson 8765 SW Rieling Street . Skate. Park Connie Ramaekers . 9655 SW Murdock Skate Park' . Wayne Lawler 503-524-8471 11965 SW Springwood Verizon's Contractors . Dan Richards* 12320 SW 72"d Avenue #121 Skate Park Welcome to Fifth Tuesday, August:30cn Tonight's agenda (by requests): : o.. Walnut Island Sewer Extension o Zoning on Walnut. o Tigard Skate Park o Verizon Contractors 1. Walnut Island Sewers a. Roger = Ann,Street. Annexed in 2000, one of the benefits is sewer: extension. b. What is the status of the extension to area _ especially Ann Street c. What is the process for,determining priorities d. Why couldn't it have been done earlier when there were 18 homes in the area? Now it is down to 6 homes,so cost will be high for them. e. City needs to provide more information to neighbors. • • Roger Potoff: What is extent of extensions inparticular-toAnn Street?: How is decision made? Start date and when .will. it be done? Strategy how we do it - pits neighbors against neighbors. City annexed, -but he was thinking they would have .sewer. by.3 years. Easement for sewer on'Walnut - . one block to Ann Street: Easement on back of Ann was abandoned. Nine homes- is no longer. divided among 18 homes, - First 3 homes were allowed to connect through Walnut. Now, down to six homes. One ofthe longest lines in Tigard. Not enough i nformation getting to residents of Walnut Island. Need to call this resident. 2. Zoning. on. Walnut a. Concerned about home for sale between 1161H & 121 st b. Zoned so that lot could have 3 homes - R-7 c. Would have to take down trees City Council Fifth Tuesday 8/30/05 ' . Page 1 d. 'Homes are downhill from lot so septic tanks would.run into others lots. • Mary Potoff: Zoning 116th -121x` House for sale- 22,000 sq. ft. lot can have 3 houses on that lot. Seems incompatible with neighborhood. Building'3 houses.would make septic systems worse. This house backs up to houses on Ann Street where they need sewer. Zoning is R-7. 3. Skate park - Scout Troop 646, & others a. Matt _ Need skate park in Tigard, an individual sport you can do year around:. b. Tristen =Central location - close to police/fire/library c., Dan Richards - Long term skate boarder, reduces rebelliousness if skaters can be together. i. Planned right to be next to police d. Parent -parent was happy to hear about skate park. Kids can't afford team sports:., e. Scout leader safety concerns. • . Troop 946 - Tristan Larsen Troop 946 - Dan Richards - brings in good' influence, takes away a lot of rebellion; less vandalism. Money costs now, but.savings later on, • Parent: Loves location. A lot of good: kids in Tigard. Many families can't-,afford team sports. Need a place in Tigard.. She takes kids to Tualatin.. Will support a skate park. • Scout leader: Rides bus and sees many skateboarders at transit station. It would be much safer at a skate park. • Connie.Ramaekers: Thanked City for support. 4. Verizon Contractors a. Gretchen -Contractors ram backhoes up sidewalk; damaged 3 panels. Calls.to UBI have gone unheeded: b. Wayne Lawler 503-524-8471 - Their repair work is not,being done correctly, patch work does not match. Sidewalks should be inspected. • Ran backhoes on sidewalks'(Gretchen's neighborhood) has 3 panels in sidewalk are crumbling. No.. phone calls returned. Craig D. - reoccurring problem. Stay on top of it. • Another resident has called Nancy Werner. Wayne Lawler. The sidewalk repair isn't matching-v , ery substandard. They are not returning property to proper replacement standards.' Nancy hasn't been . out to see this. Broken sidewalks and not replaced or fixed. 5. Play Structure at Library a. Gretchen -would like to have play structure-available. • Gretchen Buehner -playground on extra land at library. IVA • =Indicates notes by Sydney Sherwood' Prepared by Joan a Bengtson 1. = Indicates notes by Tom Woodruff Executive Asst. to the City Manager City Council Fifth. Tuesday 8/30/05 Page 2 Revised'.Findings from City Attorney -9/13/05-- Formatted: Right "Redline Version - Agenda Item No. 6 FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Formatted: Centered At the August 9, 2005, the City Council received testimony from various persons regarding four proposed annexations. The Council allowed all parties until August 16 to submit additional written information. This document'sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. The Council received) a request tdreopen the record to allowa response to the post-hearing written submissions and allowed until August 30 for persons to raise new issues relating to the new testimony, as provided by ' ORS 197.763(6)(c) and 197.763(7). This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. 1. After the Council allowed additional time to raise new issues in response to new.evidence submitted in the post-hearing written submissions, the City received two submissions, both a-mails sent by.Julie Russell. Neither of those submissions raises new. issues because all issues presented in her a-mails had been raised previously. Furthermore, neither of the submissions addresses new evidence submitted after the close of the. oral hearing, but simply contain further argument on the same factual and legal issues she and other opponents had raised in her earlier submissions. Therefore, neither are proper submissions under ORS 197.763(6)(c) and 197.763(7). Issues Raised By More Than One Person HB 2484 2. Some people testified that House Bill 2484 (which has been enacted into law) either prevents the City from approving these annexations or demonstrates a legislative intent that a vote is required in any area to be annexed. House Bill 2484 is straightforward'' It ' amends ORS195.215, to make it clear that "annexation plans" under ORS Chapter 195 must be approved both by :a majority of voters in the territory to be annexed and by a. majority within the City. A. HB 2484 does not apply to the annexations being considered by the City because HB 2484 applies only.to annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195, and the annexations before the City do not involve annexation plans or ORS Chapter 195. They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222;-in particular,ORS 222.125. HB 2484, even if it were effective, would not apply to or affect these annexations. B. HB 2484 requires a separate vote in the area to be annexed for annexation plan annexations. However, requiring a vote in-,the area to be annexed would be a meaningless and futile act for areas in which there are no registered voters. There are no registered voters in the--area to be annexed in Mountain View Estates annexation (ZCA2004-00003) or in the Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge annexation area (ZCA2005-00003). All of the registered voters in the Arlington Heights 3 CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 1 (ZCA20005-00001) and Wilson Ridge (ZCA 2005-00002)~annexation have consented to annexation. 1 HB 2722 1.: 3. HB 2722 (which has been enacted into law) withdraws the.right of cities to veto formation of new cities within three miles of their :orders. Some opponents of annexation have argued.that the intent of this bill is that the wishes of citizens in the affected areas are respected. A. HB 2722 does not apply to annexations. B: The affected areas are the areas to be annexed. Two types of persons have interests in the affected, areas - those who own property and those who reside there. All owners of all properties to be annexed, and all voters in areas to be annexed have consented to the annexation., No owner or resident in the areas to be annexed has indicated that they do not wish, annexation. SB 877 4. SB 877 (which has been enacted into law) has three major effects. One is that it limits the ability of the City of Beaverton to annex "islands" of territory surrounded by that City. The second effect is that it requires a majority vote in the.territory to.be annexed by means of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195. The third effect is to prohibit the annexation of certain types of industrial property without the consent of the, owner. A. The provisions affecting only the City of Beaverton do.not apply to the City of Tigard. B. None of the proposed annexations are "island" annexations, although an. "island" is created by the Alberta Rider,School/Summit'Ridge annexation. C. The annexations, are not annexation plan annexations and are not subject to ORS Chapter 1'95. D. The annexations are not of industriaHand and are not the type of land that cannot be annexed without the consent of the owner. The City has the consent of all • owners of all land being annexed. ` Voluntary or Coerced Consents 5. Some persons argued that the consents-are not valid because they were coerced. A. None of the people who provided ,consents stated they were coerced.. Those who testified that the consents were coerced did not specify which persons were coerced. Several persons representing property owners (Tom Weber, John CITY'COUNCIL FINDINGS,- ANNEXATIONS Page 2 1 Marquart, Sean Foushee, and Al Jeck) testified orally and/or in writing that consents were voluntary and not coerced. The City Council finds that there is no evidence that any specific individual was coerced into'consenting to annexation. If any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is likely that the person would have appeared at the hearing. The Council finds the testimony of Tom Weber, John Marquart, Sean Foushee and Al Jeck to be more persuasive than the evidence of,those claiming coercion because the named individuals' were in a position to know whether the consents were voluntary or coerced and those who claimed that the consents were coerced did not have personal knowledge regarding the consents. The Council concludes that none of the consents were'coerced. } B. ORS 222.115 specifically authorizes contracts between a city and a landowner relating to the extraterritorial provision of service.in which the landowner consents to annexation. The fact that the'City requires a consenf.to annexation in return for a contract for the extraterritorial provision of service is explicitly authorized by statute and does not constitute;coercion. The City provides planning and building inspection services extraterritorially and. may require consents to annexation in order to provide those services: C. ORS 222.175 recognizes that cities may solicit consents-to annexation. The.fact that a Cify seeks consents does not mean that they were coerced and does•not• . invalidate the. consents.- . Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use Proceeding 6. Some opponents argued that•some of the consents were required in connection with land use proceedings,- and the City cannot require'consents to annexation in order to process a land use application or as a condition of a-land use approval.' " A. For consents that were provided in connection with a land use approval, the time to challenge the City's authority to impose the consents was during the land use process. In all but one of thec ases, the landuse:process has been completed and _ Deleted: each" the appeal period has passed. The requirement to provide a consent to annexation can no longer be challenged in those cases. None of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use proceedings have in any way challenged the consents or the requirement to provide•the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified that they affirmatively desire that their properties be annexed to the City of Tigard The applicant for the.one land use process that has not been completed (Arlington Heights 3) has testified that the consent to annex that territory { voluntarily provided, and the City Council finds that the consent in that case was voluntary~General Concern For The Bull Mountain Area Deleted: I 7. Some opponents stated concerns related to the Bull Mountain area in general and to their. property in unincorporated areas of Bull-Mountain. Some of them argued that the CITY'COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 3 ; proposed annexations should not proceed because of the negative vote when the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan was presented to the voters in the area to be annexed. A. The rights and interests of the owners and registered voters in the areas proposed for annexation are recognized by statute. The statutes do not create•a legally protected interest for other persons. B. These annexations are different from the annexation plan presented to the voters.' . These annexations are property-specific annexations under ORS Chapter. 222. The City,and the'annexation applicants are not requesting approval of an. annexation'plan. The rejection of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195 does not prevent later annexation of specific territory under a different annexation statute. "Double Majority" Vote 8. Some opponents,of the annexation argued that a "double majority" vote (a separately tabulated vote in the City-and in the area to be annexed) is required. A. A `.`double majority" vote is or will be required for annexation plans•under ORS Chapter 195: However, for annexations under ORS Chapter222, votes in the City are not required unless required by City charter or ordinance, and votes in the area, to be annexed are not required if certain criteria are met. A vote in the area to be annexed is .not required if all of the owners of all of the•land and a majority of the electors in the area to be annexed, if any, consent to the annexation. ORS 222.125. The City Charter and Code do not require a vote within the City. ' B. As to each~of,the annexations, the City has received the consents of all of the owners of all of the land. The City has also received the consents of all of the registered voters in each area that has registered voters. These annexations are not annexation'plan annexations -under ORS 195, so the double majority requirement does not apply. The City is not required to hold a vote in any of the ' territories to be annexed,, either because'there are no electors in the areas to be annexed or because the City has the consent of a majority of the electors in those areas. "Islands", Of Unincorporated Areas Surrounded By. The City 9. Some opponents argued that these annexations create islands of unincorporated areas . surrounded by the City. They also.note that the City may later annex those islands without consent of owners or electors. + A. There is no legal prohibition on the creation of islands. •The.City must consider' annexation applications that create islands under applicable standards. While the Council must consider whether the, borders created by an annexation are so CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS. Page 4 . r• , irregular as to potentially cause problems with the provision of police services, the police department accepts these boundaries as being acceptable and not causing confusion for the provision of police services. The police department has provided written statements that they can provide services. The Council finds that the boundaries are not irregular to the extent they create confusion in the provision of police services. B. The City does have the authority to annex islands, but is aware that the statutory authority to annex islands may be withdrawn, as it has been-withdrawn from one other'city and from` certain types of land. The possibility of a future annexation proceeding is not an applicable standard or criterion-in deciding whether to approve these annexations. Regular Boundaries 10. Several persons commented that the annexations will not result in'a regular boundary. . A. The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1.2, which provides: .Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on findings with respect to the following: i a. The annexation eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island of unincorporated territory; or b. The annexation will not create an irregular. boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine, whether the parcel is within or outside the City; C. The police department ha's commented on the annexation; d/ The land is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is contiguous to the City boundary; e. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10:1.1(a). B. 'Policy 10.1.2 is complied with if either (1) subsection'a or (2) subsections b through'e are met. These annexations comply with subsections b through e. The annexation iboundary will not make it difficult for the police in: emergency situations to determine whether the parcel is within or,without the City. The police department has commented on the annexation and stated.that it is capable of providing service. All areas' proposed for annexation are within the-Tigard Urban Planning Area and are contiguous to the City. The services listed in 10.1.1(a) (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police and fire protection) can be provided to the areas to be annexed - the City and other responsible service CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 5 I providers have capacity to provide service to the areas to be annexed. The Council finds that the annexations provide for a reasonable extension of the City's boundaries: Individual Comments - Testimony at Hearing Les and Ellen Godowski 11. ' The Godowskis argued that the annexations will also prevent. certain areas from creating their own cities or annexing to King City. A. The City has no obligation to refrain from annexing territory based on the possibility that some, other city may be incorporated in the area.at some point in the future. B. All applicable plans and intergovernmental agreements that address. urbanization or the provision of urban services designate Tigard as the City that will annex and/or provide urban services to the areas being annexed. Charles Radley 12. Charles Radley argued that the annexations would violate Dolan v. City of Tigard and that there is no "essential nexus." Mr. Radley also provided a written document. A. Dolan v. City of Tigard applies only to cases in which the City exacts property from a property owner at the time ofa land use approval: Dolan does, not apply to annexations. B. To the extent the Mr. Radley is arguing that the City could not require the- property-owners to consent to annexation as' a condition of land use approval, that challenge is too late. The land use approvals are final and cannot be collaterally challenged. Furthermore, Mr. Radley was not the applicant or a landowner in any of the land use cases and lacks standing to challenge conditions that have been accepted-by the applicants. C. The "essential nexus" requirement is imposed on exactions. by the Nollan V. California,Coastal Commission case., Like Dolan, the case applies only to • exactions at the time of land use approvals, not to annexations. To the extent that Mr. Radley is challenging conditions of approval in the previous-land use cases, that challenge is too late, and Mr. Radley lacks standing to make the challenge. . D. The document that Mr. Radley provided is an excerpt discussing the requirement, under Rhode Island law, that a building official must issue a building permit that CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 6 -i , ' meets the requirements of the building code. Rhode Island law concerning building officials is not relevant to any issue regarding these annexations. If Mr.., Radley is attempting to argue that the City cannot require a consent to annexation,, any requirement regarding consents to annexations by the City are imposed in the context of a land use, proceeding. The City has more authority and more discretion in land use proceedings than'in issuing building permits. Julie Russell 13. In addition to issues raised by others, Ms. Russell claimed that the map included with the notice of annexation was inaccurate as to which areas are included within the City limits and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell argued that the City's process violated Comprehensive Plan'Policies 2.1.1. and CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell stated dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning. 'A. The maps provid'edwith the notice were accurate. They'showed the location of the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by a shaded yellow area. There is no requirement to provide.a map with the notice of the annexation hearing. ,Even if there 'was some inaccuracy, the maps provided " sufficient information to advise-.of the location of the properties to be annexed and their relationship to the City. The City provided notice in compliance with all applicable requirements. In the event that some person:may have failed to receive notice, failure of a person to receive'noticeidoes not invalidate. the notice, which was properly provided. . B., Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1' provides: "The City shall maintain•an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizerislwill be provided an . opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is not an approvalstandard'or criterion for,an annexation application. The City's land use regulations have been acknowledged; and those regulations provide the process, including citizen involvement, for considering land use applications. That process includes notice and a hearing, and the.City provided notice and a hearing, as required by the CDC. Compliance with,the acknowledged regulations demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan'policies implemented by the regulations. Citizens, including Ms. Russell; have had the opportunity to be involyed'in process.' The process of necessity works differently in a quasi-judicial .land use.process than in a legislative process. C. CDC 18.320.020 provides: 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards A. Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed, by means' of a Type IV,Orocedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390 using standards of approval contained in Subsection B2 below. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS " Page 7 f 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: ; L All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and 2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and.' implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. C. Assignment of comprehensive plandand 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 Chapterl8.380). A request for a zone change can be processed -concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. D., Conversion table.. Table 320:1' summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations to City, designations which are most similar. The City used a Type IV approval process. The City has capacity to provide all required services to the area to_be,anneked, and the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, including those in Chapter 10, have been satisfied. The properties being annexed already have City comprehensive plan and zoning designations, that have been adopted and imposed by the County. Ms. Russell specifically argued that'the City lacks parks capacity in the area. However, the City has sufficient parks capacity throughout the City to provide service to its residents, including residents in the areas being annexed. The services' listed in the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer, storm sewer, streets, police and fire protection; are the essential services that must be available, and those services will be available to the newly annexed areas. Ms. Russell questioned the adequacy of the street system. The City Council finds that the street system is adequate to provide service and will remain adequate. If the properties are not.annexed, they could still be developed consistent with the County zoning, which' is the same as . City zoning, so whether the properties are annexed or not does not affect the. impact on the street system. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 8 ' 1. ' 4. D. The areas to be annexed all have existing City zones that were established consistent with Table 320.1. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Community Development Code,provisions. Scott Miller " 14. In addition to issues addressed in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these findings, Mr. Miller stated a concern with an increase in taxes. Mr. Miller also argued that the consents received by the City are not consents. A. Mr. Miller does not own property, being annexed. His property is outside the area proposed for annexation. His taxes will hot increase as a result.of the annexation.' The property owners in the area to be annexed have consented to the annexation. Whether taxes may increase is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding an annexation. B. For each of the annexations, the City has either the written consent of the property owners or a petition from the property owners to initiate the annexation. All are valid consents'. Lisa Hamilton Treick 1'5., In addition to issues address 'in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" sectionof J these findings, Ms. Hamilton Treik argued that Measure 37 gives property owners rights that are violated by these annexations. A. Ms. Hamilton Treik does not own property that will be annexed by these annexations. All owners of property being annexed have consented to 'these annexations. The property'owners or.their'representatives who testified expressly stated that they voluntarily consent to the annexations. One of them, Tom Weber, stated that he actively sought annexation to Tigard because of the. value it brings to his property. Measure 37 is.not an applicable standard or` criterion for annexation. 16. Ms. Hamilton Treik also argued that the City has no authority to condition land use approvals or acceptance of land use applications'on a consent to annexation. Deleted: This is a challenge to final - - = A. In addition to Findin s 6 and 7, the various a,reements with the Count and Other. land use decisions that were not been - - appealed within [he time allowed by g y urban service providers, including the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement and Statute. Those decisions cannot be Tigard Urban Service Agreement, anticipate that the City will provide planning services collaterally : Bulla. and will ultimately annex Tigard's urban service area. Requiring annexation is not Formatted: Bullets and Numbering inconsistent with those agreements. Urban Service Agreement Section I,D provides that Deleted: T CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 9 the City shall endeavor to annex certainareas, including all areas currently proposed'for annexation. Requiring annexation consents effectuates this provision of the Urban Service Agreement. The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement gives Tigard all land use decision-making authority over the area to be annexed: Land use authority includes the authority to impose conditions. The City has the authority to impose a condition of approval requiring consent to annexation when it receives a land use application for a property outside the City.. Individual Comments - Post-Hearing Written Submissions Julie Russell 17. Ms. Russell again discussed general opposition to annexation in the Bull Mountain area, HB 2484, SB 887, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2~1.Land 10.1.2, and CDC 18:320.020: The above findings address those arguments. 18. - Ms. Russell also argues that the zoning is wrong'and inconsistent with the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The areas have all been rezoned by the County and the zoning being applied is the zoning required by CDC 18.320. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the written testimony of John.Marquart, there is little or no practical difference between Washington County.R-6 and Tigard R-7 zoning, as applied. 19. Ms: Russell argues that not everyone who was entitled to receive notice actually received notice. The City provided notice as required by applicable regulations. While it is possible that some persons did not receive. notice, the City complies with the notice requirements.. 20. Ms. Russell complains about possible effects on other service providers. The City has not received any negative comments from other service providers. All service providers.. in the area have agreed that the area being annexed will be annexed to Tigard. Services will be provided as agreed to id the Urban Services Agreements entered into by the- City and other service providers. . 21. Ms. Russell argues that the annexation will interfere with the orderly and economic provision of,public facilities and services. However, her argument appears to be that services can be•provided without annexation. 'That does'not mean thatannexation will disrupt or interfere with service provision. The agreements between the service providers will ensure orderly and economic provision of services. 22. Ms. Russell argues that the Alberta Rider.School property should not be annexed. None of her arguments relate to any applicable standard or criterion: 23. Ms. Russell opposes the Summit Ridge annexation as non-contiguous. The Summit Ridge area being annexed will be contiguous with the City,on annexation. 24. Ms. Russell objects.to the Annexation of Arlington Heights 3 on the grounds that the CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 10 annexation will cause annexation to a homeowners association. That argument does not related to any applicable standard or criterion. Participation in a homeowner's association is a matter of contract between the par ies.and unrelated to a- City's authority to.annex. Ms Russell also argues that the City cannot annex only part of a subdivision. No applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation of part of .a subdivision. Furthermore, Arlington Heights 3 is a separate subdivision from Arlington Heights I and 2. Lavelle and Marie Day 25. The Days object to the annexation on the grounds that the annexation may interfere with efforts to annex to King City or to create a new.city. This argument does not relate to any applicable criterion or standard. None of the Days' other arguments are based_on Deleted: applicable standards or criteria. Jackie and Gary Kisling 26. The Kislings raise issues related to HB 2484 and HB 2722. Those bills are addressed in the above findings. Henry Kane 27. Mr. Kane makes arguments against island annexations. None of the annexations are island annexations. Lisa Hamilton-Treik and Tom Treik 28. Ms. Hamilton-Treik and Mr. Treik oppose the process in which the hearings on four annexations were combined as causing hardship.on those who wish to appeal. Even.if the hearings had not been combined,.the hearings could have,been, and most likely would' have been held at-the same meeting. Therefore, the appeals would have all been due at the same time. Combining the.hearings allowed people to state their objections a single time so as to avoid multiple repeated testimony. All persons were given a full opportunity to address any issues related to any of the four annexations. . 29. They also object to the boundaries'as being irregular and question the voluntariness of the consents. These issues are addressed above. 30. They also oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to Tigard's TIF accounts. That is not a relevant issue and does not relate to any applicable standard or criterion. Philip E. Decker 31. Mr. Decker opposes the annexations as not being contiguous. No property being annexed will be separated from the City by any intervening unincorporated territory. The annexations are of contiguous property: CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--- ANNEXATIONS Page I 1 32. Mr. Decker argues that ORS 222.115 allows annexation contracts only for contiguous parcels. ORS 222:115 does not require that property be contiguous at the time an' annexation contract is signed. One purpose of ORS 222.115 is to allow properties that are not contiguous to. consent to annexation so that they can receive urban.services immediately an&be annexed later when intervening properties annex. The contiguity requirement applies only when the'annexation becomes effective: 33. Mr. Decker argues that the areas being annexed are irregularly shaped. The shape of the'. area being annexed is not an issue. 34. Mr. Decker argues that previous annexations were improper.' The previous annexations are final and have not been challenged. They cannot be collaterally attacked at this.time. Comments In Support' 35. After the hearing, the City received several written comments in support of the proposed annexations, including statements from Sean Foushee, on behalf of the applicants for the Mountain View Estates, from John Marquart on behalf of the applicant for the Wilson .'Ridge annexation, and from Tom Weber, on behalf of the owners of the Arlington Heights 3 property, all of whom stated that the annexation applications were voluntary. Mr. Marquart and Mr. Weber addressed other issues, strongly supporting the annexations of their respective areas. G:\in un i\Tigard\revise dannexationfmdings081705. doc CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 12 ; RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR MEASURE 37 CLAIM A Measure 37 claim is not a' land use proceeding, so the rules applicable to land use proceedings do not apply to`a Measure 37 claim. In particular, the rules for holding the hearing open or providing additional evidence after the close of oral testimony do not apply. The City is committed to providing a full and fair hearing before an impartial decision- maker. Council members will be asked to declare ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest, and bias. Any person may offer oral 'and/or written testimony. Oral testimony may be , offered only by a person who has been asked to speak by the Mayor. After the discussion of conflicts and any challenges, City staff will summarize the written staff report and explain the proposed amendments. Then the applicant will be provided an opportunity to testify, followed those in favor of the Measure 37 claim. Then those who oppose the claim or who.have questions or concerns testify. The applicant will have the opportunity,for rebuttal, and the Council may allow-further rebuttal to new issues or facts raised in the rebuttal: Council members may.ask the staff and•the witnesses . questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, the City staff-can make a closing statement. After the record is,closed, the. City Council will deliberate. During deliberations,'the City Council may re-open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive -additional'evidence before making a decision. When you are called to testify, please come'forward to the table. Please begin your, testimony by giving your name, please spell your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so: If you have any exhibits you want us to-consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs„ petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand' all new exhibits to the City Recorder.' These exhibits will be marked as part of the record. i:\etlm\cathy\ccaWles of procedure - measure 37 - Sept 05\rules of procedure for measure 37.claim.doc, , I , Chaves T. Wilson RECEIVED PLANNING 10745 SW 135 Avenue Beaverton, OR 97008-9320 SEP 0 9 2005 (503) 372-5144 CITY OF TIGARD W isonews0-comcast.net September 7, 2005 Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR ' 97223 Attn.: Mr. Dick Bewersdorff Regarding: Lot 63, Hawk's Beard Townhomes' Hon. City Council Members: My residence is at Hearthstone Cottages, comer of 135'f Ave. and Scholls Ferry Road. I live in ' one of 14 new homes that were recently offered for sale. As a Beaverton resident, I da not feel that I have the privilege to take a stand on the issue of Mr. Grabhorn's claim for compensation. However, on the secondary issue; the zoning change, I must support my residential neighbors south of Scholls Ferry Road. Another commercial area along that portion of Scholls Ferry-Road would create a friction point in what is now basically a residential area, especially along that section of the roadway. This writer would prefer that the zoning remain as is. (R-25) Respectfully yours, ' 1; ..1 .n .,jt~:f ~r .]11yt ^•3.. ~ . Y:.• 'c., , •-.r - t ..i: ,)i ..:.i. e. _•.V- ..~t~`~v.i~': •Y :~i •.-~t•.il._ je.1..i 'j7~i- . ..i! •i/ -)f: . r't'. t d::• . _.,.1i.Fl.. tr z•:.{:~if= _iii'~r _'.3?i., I :~.'.c:' ..,'1. :~'`tt;-sLf' c:jr(.i~~3; :)T•i. , p' ,e3?. ':i y` j tn. ~.4 .,r _13+; , '!(~j~' <:T",~JJ ..e ^t• }:.Sit` r: :--1:'.,..:r - .."t;i.I, ....:y'.>., r. , ~ ' Cathy Wheatley - add to pink sheet for tonight! w~ Page 1 From: Joanne Bengtson To: Cathy Wheatley Date: 9/13/2005 1:27:05 PM Subject: add to pink sheet for tonight! The Chief has,borrowed a shooting simulation machine from the state and would like to offer Council the opportunity to take the simulator test to give them insight to what kind of training TPD officers complete. He has the machine placed at the water building until September 23 when it is. returned to Salem. Each scenario takes about 10-15 minutes. Longer if they would like to do more scenarios, or the same scenario with alternate situations. It teaches when to shoot and when'not to shoot, and, provides statistics regarding target accuracy and ,speed. Please call Chief Dickinson at.503-718-2572 if you are interested in trying the shooting range program. . Item No For Council Meeting of ,:'7lfrt , ti,;r i?y7 °~l ,(i~j~ii~i ~x"` d •~p~ h ~~4~f~iii ~ t~ ~1111N _ sV tt PROCLAMATION 'u 6nStIm. lon Week , illiUl~ WHEREAS,' September 17, 2005; ,marks the two-hundred-eighteenth' anniversary of the W drafting of the Constitution of the United' States.. of. America by the Constitutional ~llSf=' Convention; and WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper' to accord official'. recognition to this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary, and, to the, patriotic celebration which will d~ commemorate the occasion; and i WHEREAS, Public Law. 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the '{N?\ President of the. United States of America designating September 17 through 23 as " Constitution Week: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT 1, Craig Dirksen, Mayor of the City of m(p Tigard, Oregon, do hereby proclaim the week of September' 1.7 through 23, 2005 as Consdtudon Week in, Tigard, Oregon and encourage all citizens to reaffirm the ideals of the Constitution by fig{"y~ vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties:, Dated this day of , 2005. 1~i01t' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, a have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the Cityai+(ii r'=~~ii{11i~'• of Tigard to be affixed. Craig'Dirksen, Mayor City of. Tigard x. Attest: .~:f-~t51.•\:~'. hl~ .f VV`MF:nu.,fFffY City' Recorder 1 8 `h • ~~Y4.~;'~~~, r !!l~{ ~''~f~•'~~:4i"ii~"'~`~Ii{iijw~i''~ JGiI ~x~ti,~„~~~ ti , t;,,,.. ~rti ~ •~In•+~ ; J~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.~.r tx „ I+ ~c + ~ IJ ~ p"a"sr.,••'~t, ~ r.~,, l~rG's~n ti"~ ,,>,u\l ~-r°._ i ~,(iS~'4 ~ ~r~"::r-^,yz '~ise~a~'arr~ r~i5e.a~~;.~slY G~f.{- dt ~?~c,1 ~ 4/u•. },,cs~n'~f N AGENDA ITEM NO.3 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE :-:SEPT. 13, 2005 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the 'appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on'other issues not on the agenda, -but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you'. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become, part of the public. record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the, meeting minutes, which is a public record. ` NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED Iz~~w 1w 1~R~~✓~~~~',✓ t4AItf C o1?,el jfi 04/ i b4-4 a A ~71Z~ /*15tieaS~<rD rn~ . rye . fz~~ 0 C akv- aK orb S T fa. r. Ware- .5 Mar ZJ~3 .S Q3 ~S'91? U-M M4W CITIZEN COMMUNICATION ` Page 1, . ,So, C'rC'~Ih I'Y~ LtJN~'CLit~~~U M TIGARD -HIGH LEADERSHIP. 9000 SW DURHAM ROAD • TiGARD • OREGON* 97224 (503) 43 1 -551 8 0 FAX (503) 4311-541 0 HTTP://THS.TTSD.K 1 2.DR.US/LEADERSHIP/HDME.HTML { nCity Council Student Report: September 13,2005 20,~~05"'26054 fiIfl `~NOthfng e§s " 010 ai ; ~e r N s %,v es Director Jud d~„Edtl,, I. Academics a. First day for Freshman Sept: 7' Presic et t; 1. Orientation went smoothly with ` `Kr~ista,t=o46,1. help of Link Leaders and staff. t ce reside taf b. First day for all-school Sept. 81 Jliliad 1,er i. Very smooth start in our gorgeous t new school!!! Activities • II. Athletics Jasmina f zderevic a. Football's first win against S. Medford Gb. All .teams still in preseason, but looking 3 I r..e ry k forward to a great season ip1v k III. Arts h Treasu Yer~4~ . a. Choir Charli~Sn i.-Just starting out the year with new members to the choir, but excited for Human,R Cations their fall concert TBDw x b. Band `ni;es i. Marching band has been ae. pecht" preparing their routine to be performed at football games and in gpt' i{ ` their fall competitions c. Theatre iucltyr i. Beginning auditions for the Fall p,4 lerdi 0ickinsn Play-dates and times to be a ` ra announced soon. usti tiu a" IV. ACTIVITIES a. Welcome Back Week i. "Mission Possible" is the theme . with our assembly this Friday. _ b: Homecoming is around the corner!!! i. Preparing for our Homecoming x Parade on October 7t' along with Mw 0 the many festivities, during the week. Page 1 of 1 Alice Ellis Gaut From: John Frewing Ufrewing@teleport.com]. Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 2:47 PM To: Sally Harding Cc: Alice Gaut; Sue Beilke; Brian Wegener; Lisa Hamilton-Treick; Julie Russell Subject: Fanno Creek Buffer Violation Sally, - On the Sept 13 consent agenda there is an item, No 4.6. which asks city council to approve modifications to a prior 'maintenance agreement' with Fred Fields which allows him to traverse city property from Hall Blvd to his property east of Fanno Creek but west of the railroad tracks. I don't know if or when city council originally agreed to the prior 'maintenance agreement' - it would be interesting to know. I am concerned that the area of the maintenance traffic violates the 5DJQot Faring CxaekJx&er. The mag.,accompanying this agenda item shows it eing some 30 feet wide an IMMEDIATELY adjacent to. Fanno Creek. Gus D tells me that this is where the historic traffic has gone and that there is what might be called a culvert under which Red Rock Creek passes on this path. The culvert is not in any way approved for traffic - a visit will confirm - it overflows from time to time as the flow from Costco, Tigard Cinema, Babys R Us, etc parking lots flush toward Fanno Creek. Of course there is no 'road' along this path either - only dirt or mud tracks, depending on time of year. I think thepuffer area-alon Li Fanno Creek is established for a reason - provision of some habitat for riparian animals and lants -and should be rotecc -d. us seems to thin c tha istory is reason enough to extend the 'maintenance agreement' potentially FOREVER. The old maintenance agreement died in November 04; this one has no end date at all. The end date is when Wall Street is built over Fanno Creek to Fred Fields' property or other access is gained. -don' think Tigard should approve open ended agreement. This 'maintenance agreement' also seems to give Fred Fields an additional 50 feet of easement parallel to his existing 20 feet of ownership along the south side of the city's library property - so it is much more than simply a 'maintenance agreement'. asked Gus why Fred Fields could not being his equipment in from the other end of the property - off Milton Court and across the Metro Brown property, where a more defined road exists without violating any stream buffer area - his answer was a vague'he's talking with Metro but they are giving him a difficult time'. Now I am aware that there are some valuable native plant stands in Fred Field's forest adjacent to the Brown property (camas), but entry from that end need not disturb such stands, and Gus says that he'believes' that Fred Field is only going to mow the grass in the field, not the forest./Tigard needs to confirm that an 'maintenance' is limited to the arass the field and that machine will not a roach the Fanno Creek u er zone anywhere else (the proposed access route already goes through the anno Creek b er zone on red Fields p ope is is in addition to the violation of the buffer zone on Tigard property). The first choice should be to negotiate necessary (and limited) access from Milton Court. If not possible, a second choice should require the development (presumably by Fred Fields) of a real culvert and roadway over Red Rock Creek, properly permitted and sized, before access is allowed. The agreement further has some squishy words about how access will ordinarily be limited to July, Aug and Sept, but other times of year are allowed if agreed upon - these uncertain words should be clarified,-since damage to the buffer area is more severe in the wet months, even if some of the uplands seem dry. I find my self not able to attend City Council meeting on Sept 13, and ask that you raise these issues regarding the proposed 'maintenance agreement'. John Frewing 9/13/2005 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD . TO: . Honorable Mayor and City Council Agenda Item No. Zcr.• For Agenda of Sept. 13, 2005 . FROM: Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder DATE: September 1, 2005 SUBJECT: Three-Month Council Calendar Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk September 11 Sunday . City's Birthday - 44th •11-18 Sun-Sun Family Week Celebration 13* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 20* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting -'6:30 pm, Town Hall '22 ..,,,Thursday Citizen Leadership Series - 9 Sessions, Thursday evenings 27* Tuesday Council Business Meeting- 6:30 pm, Town Hall 30 Friday. Council. Strategic Planning Retreat - Noon, •10305 SW 87th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon October 11 * Tuesday Council- Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 18* Tuesday_ Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 25* Tuesday", Council Business Meeting-6:30 pm, Town Hall November ' 8* Tuesday Council Business Meeting,- 6:30 pm, Town Hall 11 Friday ' Veteran's Day - City Offices Closed .15*- Tuesday . Council Workshop Meeting- 6:30 pm, Town Hall 22* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm; Town Hall 24-25 Thurs & Fri Thanksgiving Holiday - City Offices Closed 29 Tuesday 5th Tuesday. Council Meeting - 7-9 p.m.., Tigard Water Auditorium is\adm\cily council\3-month calendar for 9-13-05 mtg.doc 3-Month Council Calendar -September to November 2005 1 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2005 Meeting Date: September 20, 2005 Meeting Date: September 27, 2005 Meeting Date: September 30, 2005 Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Retreat/12:00 PM Location: - City Hall Location: City Hall Location: 10305 SW 87th Ave Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: September 6, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: September 13, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: September 16, 2005 - Bid Opening Deadline: September 5, 2005. Bid Opening Deadline: September 12, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: September 15, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: September 2, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: September 9, 2005, Scan Deadline @ noon: September 12, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: August 19, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: August 26, 2005 Req-to Sched Due @5: August 19, 2005 Televised: No Televised: Yes Televised: No Attorney Attends: No Attorney Attends: No Attorney Attends: No Study Session 1. Meeting with IWB - Dennis K. - 20 min Reserve 1/2 hour for a reception - Indonesian 2. 1-5/Hwy 99 Connector Information Briefing Delegation beginning at 5:30 or 6 p.n. and Discussion = Gus - 20 min. Executive Session - Feedback on Possible Ppty. 3. Application of Public Facility Standards in Foreclosure.- Tom - 10 min COUNCIL. RETREAT Development and Capital Improvement Program Executive Session - Potential Litigation - Gus - Projects - Gus - 20 min 20 min 4. Proposed 79th Avenue Local Improvement Dist. Time Available: 45 min - 30 scheduled/15 left - Discussion of Options - Gus'- 25 min. Consent Agenda 5. Provide Input on Washington County Issue LCRB - Design Services for-Downtown Comp. _ Papers - Jim-- 30 min Streetscape, Commercial Vannie/Barbara _ 6-. Graphic Identity/Branding Design Concept Library Policies - Margaret - RTS Needed Discussion - Liz - 60 min Management COLA- Sandy- RTS Needed - dependent upon 9/13 discussion T CCDA - Update - Urban Renewal Plan Status Jim/Barbara - 25 min. _ Business Meeting o Introduction of Indonesian Delegation - Margaret - 10 min. Proclaim Oct: - Disability Employment Awareness (D r Month Joanne - 2 min, (DD Proclaim Oct. - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month - Joanne -2, min o End of Legislative Session Report-- Sen. Burdick, Rep..Galizio -.Joanne - 30 min. Z Review and Adopt Resolution Accepting the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan - Jim 60 min Annual Police Report - Bill D. - 30 min. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: 200 min. Time Avail:: 135min. - Time Scheduled: 134 min Time Left: -0- min. Time Left: 1 min. Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2005 Meeting Date:. October 11, 2005 Meeting Date: October 18, 2005 Meeting Date: October 25, 2005 Meeting Typerrime: Business/6:30 p.m ° Meeting Type/Time:, Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Location:. City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: September 27, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: October 4, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: October 11, 2005 . Bid Opening Deadline:, September 26; 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: October 3, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: October 10, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon:- September 23, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: September 30, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: October 7, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: September 9, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: September 16, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: September 23, 2005 Televised: Yes Televised: No Televised: Yes Attorney Attends: Yes Attorney Attends: No Attorney Attends: No Study Session Study Session Discussion of GIS Coordinator Position - Gary - 1. Jt. Meeting with Senior Center Board - Loreen Report to Council - Ranked Responses from RTS Needed 30 min. (Loaves & Fishes will provide Council RFP'` Legal Services with dinner.) Jt. Meeting with Tree Board on Proposed Alterations to Chapter 18 and Amend Tree Time Available: 45 min - 0 scheduled/0 left Board Resolution - Dennis - 30 min. Time Available: 45 min - 0 scheduled/0 left Consent Agenda - E-Mail Discussion - Tom (Nadine, Cathy) - 20 min Consent Agenda Communication Update --Liz - RTS Needed . Present 3rd Quarter Goal Update - Joanne Budget Amendment for GIS Coordinator - Tom - RTS Needed Business Meeting Business Meeting Proclamation - Make a Diff. Day - Joanne - 2 min Tigard Access Plan Progress Report - TriMet PHQJ - Sunrise Annexation - ZCA 2005-0004 - General Manager Fred Hansen- Jim - 25 min -Jim - 15 min. Request by Tri-Met for above to be first... Hi Hat Measure 37 Claim - QJPH - ORD - Jim - 30 min Need request to Schedule: CCDA - Draft Urban Renewal Plan - Jim - ODOT - Gus 60 min Time Avail.: -135 min. -Time Scheduled: 107 min Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: 80 min. Time Avail.: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 25+ min Time Left: 28 miri. ITime Left: 120 min. Time Left: <110 min Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2005 Meeting Date: November 8, 2005 Meeting Date: November 15, 2005 Meeting Date: November 22, 2005 Meeting.Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m.. Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:_30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: ` Greeter: Materials Due @ 5. October 25, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: November 1, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: November 8, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: October 24, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: October 31, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: November 7, 2005 Scan-Deadline @ noon: October 21, 2005 Scan Deadline@ noon: October 28, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon:. November 4, 2005 . Req to Sched Due-@5: October-7, 2005- - Req to Sched Due @5: October 14, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: October 21, 2005 Televised: Yes . Televised: No, Televised`.- Yes Attorney Attends: Yes Attorney Attends: No Attorney Attends: No Study.Session Study Session - Consent Agenda = Consent-Agenda Business Meeting _ Business Meeting Need request to Schedule: Need request to.Schedule: _ Youth Advisory Council - Liz Tree, Board.- Dennis K. - TriMet --Jim H. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: Time Avail.: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: Time Avail.: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: min Time Left: Time Left: Time Left: min. AGENDA ITEM, # ` .3 FOR AGENDA OF September 1. 3,12005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE-- A Resolution Approving Budget Amendment #1 to the FY 2005-06 Budget to . Increase Appropriations in the Water, Water CIP, and Water SDC Funds for Funding of Certain Capital Water Projects. 'PREPARED BY: Michelle Wareing DEPT HEAD OK' CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should City Council approve Budget. Amendment #1 to the FY 2005-06 Budget to increase appropriations in the Water, Water SDC, and Water.CIP funds for funding of certain water projects?. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval.of Budget Amendment #1. INFORMATION SUMMARY When the FY 2005-06 Water Capital Improvement budget was created and adopted, it was anticipated that the purchase of the reservoir site on Bull Mountain near the Alberta Rider School would be completed in FY,2004-05. Also, it was projected that the expenditures for the Walnut Street and the Telemetry Upgrade Capital Improvement projects would be greater than what was actually incurred in FY 2004-05. Therefore, those unspent appropriations were not carried forward into FY 2005-06. Finally, a new project related to the acquisition of a long term water source has arisen as well as the FY 2005-06 budgets for the Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) #2 well construction and the purchase of another reservoir site on-the north side of Bull Mountain are not adequate now that the estimates for the actual costs of the projects have•been updated. It is estimated that the purchase of the reservoir site near the Alberta Rider School could 'be as much as - $1.2 million. There are no appropriations for the purchase of this.reservoir site in the FY 2005-06 Budget as it was anticipated that the site, would be purchased in FY 2004-05. However, the FY 2005-06 Budget does include $600,000 for construction of this reservoir. Also, the FY 2005-06 Budget contains appropriations for purchase of . an additional reservoir site on Bull Mountain in the amount of $400,000. Due to rising property values, it has been determined that an additional $600,000 will be needed to purchase this other reservoir site. The Walnut Street project, the Telemetry'Upgrade project; and the ASR #2 Well construction have appropriations in the FY 2005-06 Budget, but they are not adequate to complete the projects. The Walnut Street project needs an additional $116,720, the Telemetry Upgrade project needs an additional $77,500, and the ASR #2 well construction project needs an additional $100,000. Finally, $50,000 is needed for the Lake Oswego Feasibility Study, which is the new project that is related to the acquisition of a long term water source. The total. additional funding, needed for these projects is $2;144,220. As,the contingencies in the Water, 'Water CIP and Water SDC funds are insufficient to cover the total additional funding needs, staff is recommending that certain projects that were budgeted for in FY 2005-06 be postponed until FY 2006-07. The appropriations for these postponed projects could.then be used to fund thepurchase of the two water reservoir sites listed above. The projects that are recommended to be postponed are as follows: • 550' Zone Improvements: Reservoir #2 Construction $450,000. This project.is' for the construction •of the reservoir near the Alberta Rider School. As the site has not been purchased, construction cannot occur. It is estimated that $150,000 of the $600,000 budget for construction will be needed in FY 2005-06 for design expenses. This, leaves $450,000 available for property purchase expenditures. • 550' Zone Improvements: 10 MG Transfer Pump Station Upgrade - $150,000. This project is for the replacement of the pump station that serves the 550-foot and 713-foot service zones. The new pump station will be constructed in parallel.with the new Reservoir #2. As the' site .for Reservoir #2 has not been' purchased and construction of the reservoir will not occur until FY 2006-07, this project can be delayed until FY 2006-07. It, is estimated that $50,000 of the $200,000 budget for construction will be needed in FY 2005-06 for' design expenses. This 'leaves $150,000 available for property purchase expenditures. • ASR #3 Production Well - $1,090,000. This project is for the construction of the ASR #3 well. A viable site for the. ASR #3 well has not been identified; therefore construction can be postponed until FY 2006-07. These appropriations would be available for property purchase. By postponing these projects, $1,690,000:in appropriations is available for land purchase of'the two:reservoir sites. An additional $110,000 would need to be transferred from Water CIP °contingency, so the $1.8 million for land purchase' would be available. The other projects would be funded by transfers from contingencies. The ASR #2 . Well. construction and the Lake Oswego Feasibility Study would' be funded by,a transfer of $150',000 from the Water CIP Fund contingency. The Telemetry Upgrade would'be, funded' by a transfer of $77,500 from the Water' Fund contingency. The Walnut-Street project would be 'funded by a transfer of.$58,360, from the Water Fund contingency and a transfer of $28,360 in the Water SDC Fund contingency. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not approve the resolution: VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION. COMMITTEE STRATEGY Urban and Public Services, Water and Stormwater ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution including Attachment A Memo from Brian Rager FISCAL NOTES. The Resolution will transfer- $135;860 from the Water Fund contingency, $5.8,360'from the Water SDC.Fund contingency, and $260,000 from the Water CIP Fund contingency to the Water Capital Improvement Project ' budgets. This Resolution will also postpone certain projects as listed above with total appropriations equaling $1,690,000. These -appropriations will then be used, to fund the purchase of two reservoir sites. WEMORAND.UM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brian Rager, Assistant Public'Works Director RE Water Project Budget Amendments DATE: August 19, 2005 Staff discovered that we have.a shortage of funds needed for particular water system projects or.expenses due'to -insufficient carry over, from Fiscal Year 04/05.. We have also.'- determined since the time of the budget submittal,-that. certain .real'property transactions will cost more than what was originally budgeted. In addition, we have one.feasibility study to add as well as an increase in our ASR 2 Well House project.. The projects in question are described below PROJECT FUND ISSUE ADDITIONAL ' FUNDS NEEDED Telemetry Upgrade Water. Have $262,500 budgeted in $77,500 .05%06. However, latest estimate from'consultant shows the costs. to be $340,000. Secure.550-Foot Water SDC Had $550;000 budgeted in°04/05. $1,200,000 Reservoir No. 2 Did not spend, but failed to carry Site funds over to 05/06. Also, property value has increased and we, 'Ian to purchase 2.67 acres. Water Line Water : Had $660,000 budgeted between 1116720 Replacement - SW Water SDC both funds in 04/05. Spent . Walnut $543,280,. but did,not carry over, funds. Have $528,000budgeted in 05/06, but will need additional. + to finish: Secure 550-Foot Water SDC Have $400,000 budgeted in $600,000 Reservoir No. 1 05/06, but due to. rising property . . Site Values, Staff believes we should budget more. We will purchase: between 1..0 to 2.0 acres. ASR COT-2R' Water CIP Have $1,048,500 budgeted-for $1.00,000- (Prod uctionWell) 05/06, but failed to carry over- balance of funds from 04/05.to cover balance of consultant contract: Project will be completed in 05/06. Lake Oswego Water CIP. Tigard is working wift the City of $50,000 Feasibility. Study Lake Oswego to determine if long-term water supply•to Tigard is'feasible. No funds were budgeted for this in 05/06. TOTAL $2,144,220 ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED, Proposed. Modifications to the FY 06/06 Water -Prowect'Budq The amount of additional funds.needed for the above projects is significant. However, Staff has also found that certain other water system projects must be delayed for various " reasons, and there are other projects that can purposely be delayed, in order to free up the necessary funding for the above critical projects. ASR Projects In 05/06, Staff budgeted funds to complete a production well for a third ASR well. Also,. there are funds budgeted for another' test well. However, ASR 2 (located at the 10MG "site on Bull Mountain Road) has been delayed'due to a change in scope for that project. The'estimated production rate of this. well was 1.0 million gallons per day (mgd). Testing conducted after the well was drilled showed that the actual production of the well would be 2.5.mgd. Because of this change, the City's cons ultant.team recommended, that the well head improvement design be modified to accommodate a .higher production rate. This change resulted in a need for more funds,,which, caused Staff to re-evaluate the budget and schedule.' The end result is.that the City can delay a third production well until FY 06/07: This delay would free up $1,090,000 in the Water CIP fund. 550-Foot Zone Reservoir No.'2 This project has been, delayed due to the City having to abandon the Alberta Rider school site. as a location. Staff has been diligently working with a landowner near the Rider site and believes they will have a purchase agreement settled within one month. The 05%06 budget shows $600,000 toward design and construction of.the reservoir. Due-to the, delay with land acquisition, construction of,the reservoir can not begin this fiscal year. Further design can be achieved in preparation for construction in 06/07; Staff estimates that they will need approximately $150,000 to.cover design expenses in 05/06. Therefore, of the-$600,000" budgeted, there is approximately $450,000 available.. 550 Foot Zone: 10 'MG Transfer Pump Station Upgrade This project will eventually be constructed in parallel with Reservoir No. 2... Since construction: of Reservoir No. 2 is being delayed, this project must be delay ed'as well. Total funds budgeted in 05/06 is $200,000. Staff estimates that if design-were to begin for this project in 05/06, that approximately $50,000 would be needed-. Therefore, there is ' approximately $150,000 available. The total available funds from the three projects listed above are'$1,690,'000. Based upon the anticipated additional funding need,- roughly $454,220 must come from another, source. There is roughly. $1:5 million- in contingencies between the Water, Water SDC and Water CIP funds that can be used., The balance of the-needed funds can be . accommodated from these :contingencies. Staff has prepared. this memoeandum'.in order to prepare the Council forthe pending budget amendment that will be presented on September13, 2005.. This budget amendment is scheduled to.be on the Consent Agenda and if Council has questions or concerns. regarding the amendment,' please feel free to contact me. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF September 13, 2005 CITY-OF TIGARD; OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution Approving udget Amendment #2 to the FY 2005-06 Budget to Carry Over Funds in the Public Works Program for Replacement of Vehicles. PREPARED BY: Michelle Wareing DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK "ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL. Should City Council approve Budget Amendment #2 to carry over appropriations in the Fleet/Property l Management, Sanitary Sewer, and General funds for funding of replacement vehicles? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends approval of Budget Amendment #2. INFORMATION SUMMARY In FY 2004-05; the Public Works Department budgeted to replace several vehicles in its various divisions and most of the vehicles were received in that fiscal year. A replacement vehicle for the Property Management Division, a replacement utility, truck chassis for the Sanitary Sewer Division,, and a replacement utility truck chassis for the . Street Maintenance Division were. ordered in late spring 2005, but due to some delays, they Were not received before July 1, 2005. 'Under Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP), expenses are recorded when goods are received, not when orders are placed. Therefore, these expenses will be charged to the FY 2005-06 budget. The Department did • not budget for these expenses in FY 2005-06 -as it was anticipated that the replacement vehicles would be received prior to July 1, 2005.: Because the vehicle replacement appropriations were not spent in FY 2004-05, the ending fund balance carried into FY 2005-06 as a beginning: fund balance includes those unused appropriations. Budget Amendment #2 transfers the necessary, funds from the Fleet/Property Management, Sanitary Sewer, and General Fund contingencies. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED' Do not approve Budget Amendment #2. The Department will'show a year-end over-expenditure in capital outlay. It mayor may not overspend its budget VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution including Attachment A FISCAL NOTES The Resolution transfers $25,008 from the Fleet/Property Management Fund contingency, $13,247 from the Sanitary, Sewer Fund contingency, and $22,254 from the General Fund contingency to the Public Works Department's Property Management, Sanitary Sewer, and Street Maintenance Divisions' budgets. AGENDA ITEM # 4 5 . FOR AGENDA OF September 13, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A. Resolution Approving Budget Amendment #3 to the FY 2005-06 Budget to Increase Appropriations in. the Street Maintenance Division Bud et'for urchase of a Sign Plotter and Computer. { PREPARED BY: Michelle Wareing DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council approve Budget Amendment #3 to increase appropriations in the Street Maintenance Division budget for purchase of a sign plotter and computer? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Budget Amendment # 3. INFORMATION SUMMARY Sign standards are set by the federal government through the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). New rules' and regulations have been issued in the new MUTCD. The City's current computer, plotter, and program are over five years old and needs to be updated to comply with new rules. Also, the current plotter was,not designed to handle the materials now required by the MUTCD and is showing signs of wear. The new plotter and computer will not only allow the City to comply with new rules, but will also allow the Street Maintenance Division to make 99% of the signs in-house. and design special signs upon request. The new computer will be able to store the designs, so when they are needed again, staff wilt' not have to redesign as they do now... The total cost of the new plotter and computer is $21,000. Budget Amendment #3 will transfer this amount from the,. General Fund's contingency to the Street Maintenance Division?s budget. It should be noted that the Street Maintenance Division is fully funded by Gas Tax revenues'that are transferred into the General Fund. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not approve Budget Amendment #3 and wait for current plotter to fail. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution including Attachment A FISCAL NOTES The Resolution transfers $21,000 from the General Fund contingency to the Public Works Department's Street Maintenance Division''s budget ^ AGENDA ITEM # 4 Co FOR AGENDA OF September 13, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Amendment to the License A eement for Maintenance of the Fields Propejjy PREPARED BY A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK A.P. Duenas 'CITY MGR.OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council approve the attached amendment to the original license agreement dated November 14, 2002 for maintenance of the Fields property east of the library site? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve, by motion; the attached'amendment to the license agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment. ? INFORMATION SUMMARY The original License Agreement for maintenance of the Fields, property'east.of and adjacent to the library property was executed on November 14, 2002 and expired on November 14, 2004. This agreement provided 'a license to cross City property for purposes of maintaining.the Fields property east of the library site. It also included the promise of an easement for permanent-access to the Fields property for purposes of future development. Although the original license has expired, there is a continuing need for periodic maintenance of the Fields property. The grass on the property could become a fire hazard if not rriowed periodically and could endanger lives and surrounding property, if not-adequately maintained. This amendment extends the license until such time as a permanent easement is conveyed, or Fields obtains alternate access to the property. In addition, it adds restrictions to prohibit crossing during periods of wet•weather or unsuitable ground conditions, 'adds a revised exhibit to depict the location for crossing, and maintains the terms for granting of an, access, easement as intended in the original agreement. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL•AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable' ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Amendment to License Agreement with revised Exhibit C 2. License Agreement dated November 14; 2002 FISCAL NOTES There is no cost for the amendment to the original license agreement. I:\eng\gus\coundl agenda summades\9.13-05 amendment to license agreement for maintenance of the fields property ais.doc 1 AGENDA ITEM # + 7- FOR AGENDA OF September 13, 2005 . 'CITY OF TIGARD; OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY .ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Relinquishment of Temporag Emergency Turnaround Easements at Arbor Pointe Subdivision. PREPARED BY: G Berry DEPT HEAD OK AP uena CITY MGR OK C. Vrosser ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should City Council approve the requested relinquishment of temporaryemergency turnaround easements? STAFF RECOMMENDATION That City Council, by motion, approve the relinquishment of easements and authorize the City Manager to sign the attached "Relinquishment of Easement". INFORMATION SUMMARY The Meyer's Farm . subdivision (Sub 99-02) included' three streets that 'extend: past its.', westerly boundary and terminated just within the Arbor Pointe subdivision '(Sub 03-14) at temporary, turnarounds within City-owned -easements. The turnarounds were installed within the Arbor Pointe parcel before the, subdivision was constructed. Now that the subdivision has been completed and streets, have been extended, the turnarounds. are:no longer: needed, and the developer is requesting that the easements for the turnarounds be extinguished. The easement agreement provides that the City may extinguish the easements once the streets are extended. . For the easement in this particular situation, City Council approval is sufficient to relinquish interest. Staff has reviewed the request and has' found that the City has no further interest in the easements proposed to be relinquished and recommends approval of the request. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Applicant's Request Attachment 2: Relinquishment of Easement Attachment 3:.Easement Agreement; Doc. No. 2000073517 with Exhibits Band A (8'pages) Attachment 4: Map FISC-NOTES roval at no cost as a conditional of app wished were conveyed to the City nested to be relinq current value. ` The easemel . Farm subdivision and have no for the Meyer pofr - , 1'.\en0~~~~0f de easemerdslarbor pt easements ais.dot t • J 13:'05 FR CTIC-DEV;.BLDR. SVCS.- 5035957923 TO 95036240/1 Attachment 1; GUG•-12-2005 FRI 11-:08 AM rMA NU. West HIIIS D F.v E L O P M E N T June 23, 2005 ' Tigard City Council C/O Greg Berry, P.E: 13125 SW Hall Blvd' Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Arbor Pointe Temporary Turnaround Easement Tigard City Council: West Hills Development is the owner and developer of the approved subdivision, Arbor Pointe. I have included a title report to demonstrate our ownership of the property. . West Hills Development hereby requests that the City Council approve the relinquishment of the three temporary turnaround casements.identified as A, B and C in document number 200073517 and recorded 9-12-00. Tlie temporary turnaround easements are no longer needed d>.ie to the extension of the streets in Arbor Pointe, upon recordation of the plat. I have included a copy of the easement for yotu• review. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Respectfully, Terry Kinney Land Development.Manager West Hills Development 15500.Sw.JAY. STREET BEAVePTON,,OR 97006 503.641.7342.f 503.640661 ent T ran Ro. nCi~ aOCUm ' - CITY of TIGA City C ou ' OREGON .1. ,m sending you:... O,C°ntra : . -e, I Dacumen y ;*Other ument Name~`'`~' ' -Doc , ~ ~CLC 0' C°uncil M ved, at the Npor° included ; umber C°p1es N : b the Mayor. n : 'been Signed Y city .Manager s ha Your document( een signed byte s) CJ t s have, b aturet document with e additiona n s~. n 'r docum es an g an original 7 `lo nt(s) requ~r tainei a`, e a ©`Your docume res have been ob 4- . Y1 5 IN CA, . VNhen all signatu Records C)e ~ I. ty of T igard f QY G~ f~ ;Additional iristrudions ti \CI C COUNCtI OOGUMENT • AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TO . Clty,of Tigard City Records Division : 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR •97223 RELINQUISHMENT OF EASEMENT The 'CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON,, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the the laws of the State , of Oregon, hereinafter 'called CITY;:' hereby 'releases 'any' and all interest in temporary: emergency turnaround easements situated yin Washington County, Oregon,. conveyed to. CITY by Document No. 2000073517, Washington County,' Oregon. , . .CITY no 'longer has a need for the easements described' above, attached 'hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. " Dated this day of - 2005 CITY OF TIGARD,, OREGON By: City Manager STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) fi On )-C iM be 2005, ~Gt i t~~~S E)Z personally appeared before me, who, being' duly sworn, did say that he is the. City Manager of the City of Tigard, Oregon; and, that'said instrument was signed on behalf of said City by authority of its Council; and he acknowledged said instrument to be the City voluntary act and deed.: • NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON J fit. OFFICIAL SEAL. 'CATHERINE D.WHEATLEY c //07 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ."My' Commission Expires- I COMMISSION NO: 371142 " MY COMMISSION.EXPtRES AUG; 04 ;2007 , NN, EASEMENT STATE OF OREGON County of Washington I, Jerry ' T of Assess- ment and dAh o County eenreee Clerk for 1 d .re rtify that the with' eived Lauren-K. Stanley & Julie Ann' - and re )V', f said Startle as tenants.in common - county SPACE RESERVED ' FOR ~L And RECORDER'S USE ~if3 ~R ----City_of Tig~ard---------------- _ irector of axation, Ex- . lark Attar recording, return to (Name, Address, Zip): Doc 2000073517 ` City of Tigard............................ Rect: 262822 57.00 n 13125 SW Hall Blvd----------------------- - 09/12/2000 10:05:48am ----_TiyZard , _OR -97223 - J Ma 22+ 2000 b and - THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on Y Lauren K___Stanle & Julie Ann Stanley as tenants in -common between --------y - f Cit of Ti and • hereinafter called the first party, and'----------Y hereinafter. called the second party, WITNESSETH: Washin ton WHEREAS: The first party is the record owner of the following described real property in:_:-_---_--__g------------------ County, State of Oregon, to-wit: b See Exhibit"B" Legal descrition for Stanley's, property L . and has the"unrestricied right to grant the easement hereinafter described relative to the real estate. NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the premises and in consideration of S ___N_0_NZ by the second party to the first party paid, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the first party, it is agreed: The first party hereby'grants, assigns and sets oJer to the second party an easement, to-wit: See"Exhibit "A" Temporary'emergency turnaround'easements 2t' 0 (insert a full description of the nature and type of easement granted by the first party to the second party.) (OVER) The second party shall have all rights of ingress and egress to'and from the real estate (including the right from time to time; except as hereinafter provided, to cut,.ttim and remove trees, brush, overhanging branches and other obstructions) necessary for the second party's use, enjoyment, operation and maintenance of the easement hereby granted and all rights and privileges incident thereto.. Except as to'the rights herein granted, the'first party shall have the full use and control of the above described real estate. The second party agrees to save and hold the first party harmless from any and all claims of third parties arising from the sec- ond party's use of the rights herein granted. The period of this easement shall be per Exhibit , always subject, however, to the following specific con- • ditions, restrictions and considerations: If this easement is for a right of way over or across the real estate, the center line of the easement is described as follows: ,Not applicable and'the second party's right of way shall be parallel with the center line and not more than Not applicable feet distant from ' either side thereof. During the existence of this easement, maintenance of the easement and costs of repair of the easement, if damaged by nat- ural disasters or other events for which all holders of an interest in the easement are blameless, shall be the responsibility of (check one): ❑ the fast party; Wthe second party; 0 both parties, share and share alike; 0 both parties, with the first party responsible for.____________5 and the second party responsible for (If the last alternative is selected, the percentages allocated to each party should total 100.) During the existence of this easement, holders of an interest in the easement who are responsible for damage to the easement' because of negligence or abnormal use shall repair the damage at their sole expense. This agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of, as_the circumstances may require, not only the parties hereto'but also their respective heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest. In construing this agreement, where the context so requires, the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall, be made so that this agreement shall apply equally to'individuals and to corporations. If the undersigned is a corporation, it has caused its name to be signed and its seal, if any, affixed by an officer'or other person duly authorized to do so by its board of directors. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands in duplicate on the day and year first written above. • a'u/ren K,.. Stanl - Julie Ann Stan . STATE OF OREGON, County of Washington________ ss. This instrument was acknowledged before me on by r.AttREN K - --'TALU EY_A r-JULIL_ANhI_-TANI- This instrument was acknowledged before me on j by , as 01=FICIAI=SEAt--------- L.E. SORRELL NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON _ _ COMMISSION N0.326612 Notary Public for Oregon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 16, 2003 f I My commission expires __-__L Q ~ F P- y g • ~ Ci of Ti and SECOND PARTY . . STATE OF OREGON, County of _N% IIti--- )SS This instfttment a nowledged before me on '~i!__ 'tr by -Ayes- -n- f -eta-K5 - This instrument was acknowledged before me on by - - as of - - , - t-4_- OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public for Ore n DIANE M JELDERKS. "V commission expir ' 11-1.71?-5 r NOTARY PUBLIC4REWN COMMISSI NO.326M MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 07.2003 r EXHIBIT "B" LLegal desription of'the Lauren K. Stanley & Julie Ann Stanley property Beginning at a point on the North line of the Southwest 1'/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8, Township 2 South, Lange 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon,'.which bears North .890 51' East 330.0 feet'-from the Northwest corner of said southwest 1/4. of the Northwest 1/41 thenoe South 0°. 06' 2011 West parallel with the West line of said Section,8, a distance of 1319.79 feet to ,the South line of said Northweat 1/41. thence North 89°.. 53,.25u East along .said South line, 330.0 feet to a point-1 thence North 00'060 20" East parallel with said West lime, 575.02'feet.to a point; thence North. 890 51' East parallel with said North line, 23 feet to. a: paint, thence North 00 06' 2011 Bast parallel with, said..West'line, 745.0 feet to is paint on 'the North' line of said Southweet.'1/4 of the Northwest 1/41 thence • south 89° 511 West 353, feet to . the lace' 62, beginning. May 12, 2000 - EXHIBIT "A" TEMPORARY EMERGENCY TURNAROUND EASEMENTS LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS ..A "l "B" AND "C"' r THE PURPOSE OF THESE LEGAL. DESCRIPTIONS ARE TO PROVIDE FOR TEMPORARY EMERGENCY TURN AROUND EASEMENTS UPON THAT LAND IN TITLE TO LAUREN. K. AND JULIE ANN STANLEY AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDING No. 98-065723, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF TIGARD. IT SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD THAT WHEN.THE'PUBLIC ROADWAYS'OF S.W POLLARD LANE, S. W. COOPER LANE AND S. W. BRAY L• ANE ARE EXTENDED ONTO THE STANLEY PROPERTY AS PUBLIC ROADWAYS, THEN EASEMENTS "A', "B AND "C", SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID, AND THE OWNERS, THEIR HEIRS OR ASSIGNS MAY-VACATE.THE EASEMENTS. THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED EASEMENTS'"A", "B", AND'"C", BEING A LOCATED ON A . PORTION OF THAT LAND AS DESCRIBED KDEED RECORDING No. 98-065723, INDEED TO LAUREN K. AND JULIE ANN STANLEY, SITUATED IN THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 8,. TOWNSHIP 2-SOUTH, RANGE 1-WEST OF THE"WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON EASEMENT «A~~ < BEGINNING AT A POINT LOCATED N 00007'22"-E 7.00 FEET FROM THE THE N.W. CORNER OF LOT 100, OF THE DULY RECORDED PLAT OF'"MEYERS FARM"_ THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A 25.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00" (THE CHORD OF WHICH-BEARS . S 44°51'04" W 35.36. FEET) AN-RC DISTANCE OF 39,27 FEET, THENCE S 00°08'56" E 13.00 FEET-,THENCE S 89°51'04" W 20.00 FEET; THENCE,N.00°08'56" W 13:00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A.25.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE.TO THE LEFT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00" (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 45°08'56" W 35.36 FEET)' AN ARC'DISTANCE OF3927 FEET; THENCE N 00°08'56" W 28.00 FEET; THENCE N 89°51'04" E 70.13 FEET TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE PLAT OF "MEYERS FARM', THENCE S 00007'22" W 28.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 2990 SQUARE FEET. EASEMENT "B" BEGINNING AT A POINT LOCATED N 00°07'22" E 7.00 FEET FROM THE THE N.W. CORNER OF LOT 81, OF THE DULY RECORDED PLAT OF "MEYERS FARM". THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A, 25.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00" (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 44°51'04" W 35.36 FEET) AN ARC DISTANCE,OF 39.27 FEET; THENCE S 00°08'56" E.1100 FEET; THENCE S 89°51'04 W 20.00 FEET; THENCE N 00008'56 W 13.00 FEET., THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A.25.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A CENTRAL. ANGLE OF 90°00'00" (THE CHORD OF WHICH BE N 45°08'56" W 35.36 FEET) AN ARC DISTANCE OF 39.27 FEET; THENCE N.00008'56" W 28.00 FEET; THENCE N 89°51'04" E 70.13 FEET TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE PLAT OF "MEYERS FARM'"; THENCE S'00007'22". W 28.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING- CONTAINING: 2990 SQUARE FEET.. EASEMENT. "C" BEGINNING AT A POINT LOCATED N 00°07'22" E 7.00 FEET FROM THE THE N.W. CORNER OF LOT 61, OF THE DULY RECORDED PLAT OF "MEYERS FARM": THENCE ALONG. THE ARC OF A 25.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A CENTRAL, ANGLE OF 90°00'00" (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 44°51'04 W 35.36 FEET) AN ARC DISTANCE OF 39127 FEET; THENCE S 00°08'56" E 13.00 FEET; THENCE:S 89°51'04" W 20.00 FEET; THENCE N'00008'56" W •13.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A 25.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING 'A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90000'00" (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS 'N 45008'56 W 35.36 FEET) AN ARC DISTANCE OF 39.27 FEET; THENCE N 00°08'56" W 28.00 FEET; THENCEN 89°51'04" E 70.13 FEET TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE PLAT OF "MEYERS FARM % .THENCE S 00°07'22" W 28.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 2990 SQUARE FEET. . r E ► =30' N LL- SIDE`NALK tUFS AND' ,3' 0L(-AR Na9' ' 04 70 _ ,4 V U (f j E ~v S1 C-4 E' N$§' 51 04rE LA N. 4 ~Q c0 :<t ° ~ StDE`NALK cAND W . Z Qs o° P.0.89&00,00" w L4-90''p0'0 L"--/ w R-25.00 .R 7 ` . =25.00 _ 392 L=39 2 6 L_ C'_35.3r , 0 ")N ► ► =35.3 'S8"W, ►n° o CH8=S44 514 ► CH8.N45 08 0ri o S89'S~Q4 0 ► V O ► I 0 . : ~ 01) : ETON - A EASEMENT fVR A p OUN NOY TURNAA .EMERGE y B EFIT OF . THET~MpORARY FOR THE • p i2 2000 ON RTES; ~1C. pA-~E. MAY , Acuol UGLE SURVE! 97223--62 7 ; ENaNEERS- W ti4LL 639 L ~ F D.(503) 639-12-32 12555 PHONE S(503) i a s 00 C SCALE C i `mot CURB A DN 51DEWALK , a »E. 70, 13, _ BRAY - N89' 51' 04 (lo 9-5104 E E~ I v E to o • N o AND Slo(WA `K W o 00 ((~~Q ;URB A O N, „ ego gp'0 00 00. '000 . w . w R_25.00' R-25.00 3 'o L=39.27 ' L=39.27 o ° Co C=35.36 CHB= 544 51.' 04 W C=35.36 08'56"\X ►n o 5. CHB=N45 a~ M co • o~- 51•p4'.'o ' 00 o S:59* ' h U: SKETCH EVIT z EASEV toR A AROUH~ TRH ~ ~ EMER&ENCY. MPORARYIT'OF , THE TE THE.. BEHEF_FOR ROO 12* 2009 '~A Bic. CITY . OF )Alf. MAY Ha _JA66 ~4 g~ RS 3 6287 . "TIGARD. OR 9 09-1232 S.W. t11~11- Boo 3 .FAX. , (503) 12 E: (503) 639-345 tB1T „A» EXH N E + a ~ 4 s ' 44 Q I - 00 60 jw 30, SCALE 1 h + O CURB' 'AND StOEWALK . COOPER N$9 5104»E 70.13 N W to_ 00 LANE °N° N. CURB AND SIDEWALK W r O Z P. 0. B + + 00'00" .0000.0" x=-90' LsJ . 0=25.00 w R '25.00 i L=3g 27 . o. CL=39'27 ' 36 3.6 + CH8=N45'08'56 W o ~i 00o =3S4 51'04"`h►: M cNa= 47 I o S89'51'04»W c°n + kc) o z EASEMENT SA7CH O A NABpUND CENCY T(1R EMER TEIIpBABY OF THE ENEFIT ThL FOff ~c . OF yCARD.2, 2000 ~►GLB ASSO~T~, . CITY DACE. MAX ~~'UG94GINEERS_ 7 -.1232 BLVD. TIGARD- 01, 639 EAX- k5013) 12555 S3 6~3s_3453 PHONE: IZ %r I I~~ i it Fi U T (.1 R- E I' S %4,1 1 6; 3 R A, E- ---------1---------- -L ~I I j II ~ II ~ ' 11 - -I - - - - = - --I i FUTURE B D.I.P. .F T 7 ~ a j ~I ~II- I I FUTURE B_D.I.P. , .I.O~ EAS IAf:Nt' Z _.._-~Ta}I I--7%'-- . E/sHENr ---.c`T +IlI = EASEMENT 1 'I I II Ni! i IIII o~j I c j I q~1 II I I l I I. i IIII I I I I O I! , of I I I I I I r Io:' I !IIII I I I , I , i ~ •r IIII 1-I ' I f------------- I St.STA.6+68.1 12` BUTTfiLSFLY VALVE co I I I I I 2"BLOW 0 ASSEMBLY I I IIII IIII ST.STA.5+32.4 i I I srr0.5+23 I CW i j I sTSr0.5+14.3 I I - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TRACT IIII 1" METER FOR II 2 6• BLOW GATE OFFVALVE ASSEM I, 6"' GATE VALVE I I 6' GATE VALVE I I Q ! I" 2"BLOW OFF ASSEMBLY j I 2'BLOW OFF ASSEMBLY; - ' III •~LY I I Ar PROPE lY! NE PUMP STATIO PROPERTY!UNE I PROPERTY, UNE I PROPERTY UNE 28. .?s Iif I' Ij j III d < II II I I'I 80 1.18 I I`I 0 ELETED' A/B I L. 60 I I I 61 III Q III gg' 100 I D TER. I I I I I Q. - 4 4, i j 1. 1 I I 4' 98 l 10 4 9 39 I- W 62 el+I~l 79 . LL1 NI .STA.3+59.3- 6 I 117 I~ I L5 - -2O8;TY.+6 2 D.LP IST.STA.5+48.1 1 J ,INSTALL Fl E HYDRANT ~ 8`x12' TEE i W VII G ASSEMBLY Al . 5 2 STSTA6+71.2 III ST.STA5+37.3 I I GATE VALVE W I. I 1 REFIL CTORS ARE bI ! 7 I I s1 I, I 12'BUTTERFLY V V I = b"' N REOUIRED.A -HYDRANTS) • j_ IA1a, I ST.ST0.4+37. I 63. NI 78 83 AI P CED BY.: .W.D. I , 1 1 8 Iq i' GATE VAL I - j I F I I IIII Qj' 97 102 I I I I I .STA.3+24.6 ° I I 11_ 48 I I I 47 I I ' I U) 58 I 1 A.3+77.4 INSTALL IRE HYDRANT I ! Z; ' t Frcur I ( I - ! j INSTALL PI HYDRANT J I I DWG. 54 ASSEMBLY ! I'I I ' I - Y 15 i I I 3 m I PROPOSI I. DWG. 54~ ASSEMBLY I 77 I' 98 103 I' I 115' STL, 5±14.3 I 64 ' I I (BLUE RE LECTORS ARE I I j W W I I I I o- paoposl INSTALL FIRF HYDRANT (BLUER tTORS ARE REQUIRED T HYDRANTS) II IlI II I •5 I SEMBLY REQUIRED IA ? j I 1i O WITH uE I I I _ j PLACED BY _(D PROPOS DWG. 542 PLACED BT; W.D. Z ) II i I g! I I I I (BLUE REr~ 1 RS ARE 48 ; I I J 37 811 I ~/4 PROPOS REQUIRED AP RANTS) 63 Q ' I j' I I g3 1 04 1 I' 1 1 4- PLACED BY 11.W LI I J , I 76 84 j. I Z , l u I I I I. I I I j ~I~ 11 I, . III ' T~{) PROPOS I I H I I I - .I a II , II .•I ! PROPOS A PROPOS II I l Y I I I I 11 0 I I 113 . I 49 I jI 73 83 I ' I 94 105 J I' I 44 III l j. Ld 56 iii 66 m i I j I I O 0 <1 PROP OS II I I II I'--- I I SCH U- •A2~ U----- --a I J"- I I I 1 - . I I C, 11,41 ~ _ ~ I ~I I II ~'m I ~ I .•+n. gyn.... AGENDA ITEM # 4 FOR AGENDA OF Sept. 13, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON.: COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ' ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Washington Square Mall BZPP Grant Application'Approval PREPARED BY: Dennis J. Dirren DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE. COUNCIL The purpose of this request is to have City. Council approve/allow application for the Washington Square Mall Buffer Zone Protection Plan (BZPP).Grant. Per City of Tigard grant procedures, Council approval is necessary for grants exceeding an award amount of $25,000. If so approved and awarded, this grant would allocate $41,240 for security/safety enhancements and increased patrol functions, at the Washington Square Mall. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve/allow application for the Washington Square Mall BZPP- Grant. INFORMATION. SUMMARY . The Buffer Zone Protection Plan is an integral piece of the overall preventive and protective measures the. Department of Homeland Security: has established. This plan is intended to .foster a cooperative environment in which Federal, state and local authorities, along with private. industry, can carry out'their respective, protection responsibilities more efficiently and effectively. The BZPP will not supersede existing facility, response plans or . authorities that were-developed for response to terrorist threats or attacks. ' The objective of this grant is to identify and/or enhance the existing procedures to prevent a terrorist incident at and around,criticalinfrastructures in the United States. Additionally, the BZPP will identify and recommend solutions to any challenges or issues regarding' prevention and protective measures. This will' include a' gap analysis • to identify the need for mission-essentialequipment for first responders. The areas in and directly around the Washington Square Mall have been identified as having'a potential for'terrorist attack and/or related activities. Through the BZPP process, several, protective measures. were. suggested that would significantly increase overall security. Foremost are the current communication problems that occur, within the . Mall. Several "dead zones" exist where the police radios are completely blocked and do not transmit or receive. In addition, a majority of Mall Security Officers do not carry compatible radios- and therefore are not interoperable with TPD first responders. Communication problems have been identified in 'numerous critical, incidents throughout the years as being a priority for improving response time, coordination,' and overall.'effectiveness. _ . ..Therefore, if so awarded, a mobile repeater (radio antenna) would be purchased and placed, within the., Mall to. alleviate dead zones. Additional radios, interoperable with, TPD, would be purchased and distributed among Mall Security to increase communication effectiveness. Other enhancements are suggested and listed within Attachment ATlVE5 CGNSID . • . ' , • ' . STRA~GY SEE . C application. ACTI CGS w 0 not apprOVelallo ~ Sg'vpRCE GOp,L AND V1510N TA ' ACH -N,T L15T. 3one lication ~abridged) care `Mail BZpp Grant App 11 5 ct~ment l : w~~gton 5q FISC~' NG~ , • Atta aace Rep $41 ent, per With Grant a`nrard X240 oordinated the Fin e match re4'aaxed necessary„and "'~l b No local b . client will ded,. a budget amen If proCed~es ; OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION Washington Square Mall Tigard, OR Buffer Zone Protection., Plan May 16, 2005 i • ' b . Figure.I View of Entrance to Washington Square Mall (source:, http:iiwww.shopwash ingtonsq uare.comicontrollerisite) This plan was developed based on a-cooperative effort among the Was Square Mall', Tigard Police Department, Oregon State Police and the U.&. Department of Homeland Security, Protective Security Division. OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION Version 1110812004 SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY' LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE': 1.' INTRODUCTION The President's National Strategy for the Physical' Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets of February''2003, directed the development,of,'a. comprehensive, national approach. to physical' protection., This Strategy identified specif c initiatives fo' drive near4erm national'.: protection priorities and - updated the resource allocation process.. Following the President's direction, the Department of Homeland Security,(DHS) is to work >,closely with key public and private sector' entities to ensure the strategy is' implemented. to secure the.United . States from terrorist threats or attacks. 1.1 Purpose,' As part of,the national effort'46 protect critical•infrastructure-assets the'DHS Protective Security` 'Division (PSD.) will assist state Andlocal authorities; as well as private industry; in developing Buffer Zone Protection Plans ,(BZPPs). The purpose of a BZPP; and protective measures planning in general,'. is to develop effective preventive measures that make it more'diffcult for' terrorists to conduct, surveillance or. launch attacks'`'from the immediate' vicinity of Critical' Infrastructure/Key Asset (CI/KA) targets. - Specifically, BZPPs will: • Define 'a buffer.zone outside the security perimeter of a CUKA target; ' • Identify specific threats and vulnerabilities associated with ihe;buffer zone; • Analyze and categorize the level of risk associated' Recommend corrective measures within a-, buffer zone that will reduce the risk of a • successful terrorist attack by: o Devaluing a target: by, making it less, attractive or too` costly -for anaggressor, ; to- attack; . ' -o D'eterring.•an, event `from happening (e.g.,' through rwaming signs, physical barriers, cameras, and securiiy.guards); o Detecting an -aggressor -.who is planning .or 'co•mmitting an attack or, the presence ,of a hazardous: device or weapon;. a.nd' ` o Defending against attack by delaying or preventing an aggressor's movement - .toward the asset or use.of weapons and'explosives. ' i • . Define the. command and, control 'structure for terrorism prevention specific to an „ individual C1/KA target;. and • Review, established `security measures, to ensure they .are consistent with,.,the Homeland Security Advisory.. System. (HSAS) and, disseminate,,the information to -appropriate, authorities and emergency responders. " SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY ,INFORMATION -'FOR'OFFICIAL USE ONLY . LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION'-.FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ^ LAW,ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE > 1.2 Scope. The BZPP. is a strategic document that: • . Applies to a CI/kA site;. Provides planning guidance -and- suggested actions to-be taken,during each HSAS level., and illustrates .ways' in. which federal,;' state; and. local agencies can -most effectively synchronize their preventive'actions. The.BZPP should' not supersede existing site. response plans or authorities that were developed for response to ,terrorist threats or attacks. Rather, it is intended to foster a cooperative environment in which federal, state, and.local. authorities, along with private industry, can carry out their respective protection responsibilities'more efficiently; and effectively. 1.3 BZPP Development Steps,, 1.. Site Critical Asset Identification: ' 2. Threat Identification .3. -Vulnerability, Identification 4. Protective Plan Development Define Specific Protectiv6,Team Task's b. Resource Identification, and Acquisition" . DHS Follow-Up, with, State and.Local Jurisdictions SENSITIVE HOMELAND'SECURITYdNFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 2 SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION` FOR'OFFICIAL USE'ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT- SENSITIVE 2. .SITE MANAGEMENT ASSUMPTIONS " This BZPP assumes that" the,preventing and responding law enforcement agencies and the site's management actively- participate in a life' cycle of domestic incident "management, activities;: including: • • Awareness: Participate in security awareness practices -.and adhere to,'HSAS levels a's `appropriate. . . .Prevention: Practice prevention to"avoid incidents, intervene as necessary in order to stop incidents. from occurring, and attempt to mitigate a given incident's effects. ; ...!p Preparedness: Are involved"in activities"to identify risks or•threats .and requirements -or shortfalls and have plans to remedy shortfalls overtime. ; Response and Recovery: Cooperate "actively with federal, state, and local entities in emergency response and recoveryactivities.as needed. SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION _ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 3 SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION - FOR.OFFICIAL USE ONLY 'LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 3. SITE CRITICAL ASSET IDENTIFICATION 3.1, Site Information Site Name Washington Square Mall r Owner/Operator The Macerich Company.' Address 9585 S.W. Washington Square Road, Tigard, OR 97223 (503).639-8860 Latitude I Longitude Latitude 45.45177'45°27'6.37" N Longitude - 122.78122 122°46'52.39"W Site Type Sector: Commercial Asset Segment: Business Asset Purpose of Site Washington Square Mall is a landmark in the Portland Area, and (Brief description' of the reason provides a large selection of shopping and dining venues to the for the site to'be a critical local community. Oregon's largest Nordstrom store is located in infrastructure or key asset the mall. site.) Description'of Site: Washington Square is an.•indoor shopping mall. The five anchor (Insert details of operations, department stores are Nordstrom, Meier & Frank, JC Penney,, modes of transportation used, Sears, and Mervyn's. There are more than 140,specialty stores, inherently dangerous. • including Gap, Eddie Bauer, Bombay Co; Sbarro, Subway and commodities or activities at the Edo Japan are a few of the restaurants. Figure 1 is view of site,, and other information that outside entrance. Figure 2' is an aerial view of the mall. Figure 3 is may increase the an indoor view, Figures 4 & 5 are level 1 and food Court diagrams understanding of the critical i Washington- Square Mall was built in 1974 and underwent a and. key qualities of.the site) complete remodeling in 1994. The gross lease area is 1,244,500 square feet. However; the Mall currently has construction expansion underway that is scheduled for completion on November 5, 2005. The construction' expansion will increase the lease area by 800,000 square.feet and include a multi-level parking. structure. There are over 6,600.parking spaces at the mall. Hours of operation are: Mon-.Sat 10am- 7pm` Sun 10am-Tpm. The mall employs full time unarmed security officers. The 24-hour security office has an outside entrance on the east side of the mall between the Summit Court entrance and JC Penney. Figure 6 is.a view of guest services inside the mall. Washington Square Mall is located in the fastest growing county in the Portland Metropolitan area. It has an average of 1.2 million shoppers each month that will increase to approx 1.5 million'with the current expansion in progress. Average household incomes are over $80,000: Retail GLA = 1.3M sf Total Sales = $481 M total sales last 12 months Population 585,000 Median Age = 35.1 Average Expenditure= $65.50 Average Length of Visit = 84 minutes Shopping Frequency = 3:1 times per month. Washington Square Mall is owned and operated by The Macerich SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION - FOR'OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT,SENSITIVE 4 1 i SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION = FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE Co, a real estate investment trust listed on the NYSE wlsymbol of MAC. Macerich is one of the largest ownerloperators of regional malls in the U.S and Largest in the western U.S. with 56 malls and 21 community centers in 221 states. ~ Strategic Importance of the Washington Square'Mall provides jobs and tax dollars for the local Site: community. • Economic • . Socio-Political • ` National Security. • Infrastructure Support . Does the facility have a Yes, an emergency procedures manual and crisis management, Standard Operating Procedure plan. (SOP) for emergencies? Does the current SOP address: i Chemical Yes spills/releases Break-ins Yes . Hostage situations Yes . Terrorist incidents Yes Natural disasters Yes 24/7 POC BZPP POC Points of Contact (POCs) Jerry Edwards Emergency Lt. Darwin DeVeny Coordinator/Security Director Tigard Police Dept 503 63977192 503 718-2569 SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION = FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 5 SENSITIVE HOMELAND.SECURITY INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 3.4 Characteristics and Locations of the Site's Critical-Assets Information on the site's critical assets is taken directly from a. formal security-based.. Vulnerability Assessment, a DHS-led Security, Advisory Visit, DHS Common Vulnerabilities . and Indicators, Warnings of Terrorist Activities for Infrastructure Sectors and Segments, or a Similar detailed examination of the ; site's operation, physical plant, and criticality within the related infrastructure. CRITICAL'ASSET, ASSET CHARACTERISTICS LOCATION OF CRITICAL ASSET Food Court,: 87, acre shopping mall focusing on public The food court is centrally access areas where customers located on the second congregate and transit. floor of the Mall. 35'1000 - 45,000 persons visit the mall every Saturday and Sunday. Crowds increase up to 90,000 during holidays. The food court is capable of seating 350 persons. Summit Court area' The Summit Court-area routinely hosts The Summit Court area is local events, performers and vendors located on the main floor during weekends. During an event, 300- in the center of the mall. It 1500 persons congregate in the area. also includes,the customer services counter. HVAC System The Mall. HVAC system has three chillers The HVAC is located on providing warm and cool area to the ' the 2nd floor Mezzanine corridors and 110 businesses; as well as with access via roof or 2 S the food court and Summit Court. interior security doors. SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW-ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 12 7 SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY. INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 4. • THREAT IDENTIFICATION ASSETS VULNERABLE RELATED THREAT STREAM 'METHOD OF, ATTACK TO METHOD 1. Aviation , Airplane into store roof or Food Court/ Summit•Court/• interior. HVAC 2. Bombings Vehicle-borne improvised. Food Court/ Summit Court explosive device (VBIED) • driven into mall interior. 3. Biological Material, Gain access to roof, or through HVAC System security doors, and insert agent into HVAC intake 4. Chemical Material'` Gain access to roof, or through HVAC System security doors-and insert agent into. HVAC"intake. 5.. Maritime N/A N/A 6. Nuclear/Radiological. Material Gain access to roof, or through HVAC. security doors, and insert agent' into HVAC intake. 7. Sabotage/Hazardous Materials Man-portable improvised Food Court/ Summit Court explosive device (IED). Small-arms attack Food Court/ Summit Court , 8. Cyber Attacks N/A WA SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ..'.LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 5. VULNERABILITY IDENTIFICATION THREAT CRITICAL CARVER OPERATIONAL BASED THREATS STREAM ASSET SCORE OPERATIONAL BASED THREAT: Crash VBIED through retractable doors located below the food court. area.. VULNERABILITY: The food court is a centralized -east', side entrance. There are no vehicle barriers in place to ' prevent access into the mall. 'OPERATIONAL BASED THREAT: Emplacement of a man-portable.IED in the food court . VULNERABILITY: The food court is an unrestricted 2,7 Food Court . 38 area with 2 entrances and multiple opportunities exist to leave an IED in close proximity.to large numbers of people. The'food court has only video surveillance; no physical security measures are in place. OPERATIONAL BASED THREAT: Small=arms assault ( active shooter) in' the food court. Vulnerability: The food court has only video surveillance and random security patrol. There are no noticeable physical securitv`measures in place'. -OPERATIONAL BASED THREAT: Crash VBIED through retractable doors at the east centralized entrance into the. Summit Court and customer service area. VULNERABILITY: The, Summit Court is located in the center of the mall. The east entrance retractable doors have no vehicle barriers in place to.prevent direct access into the interior. OPERATIONAL BASED THREAT: Emplace a man- portable IED in Summit Court.area. VULVERABILITY:' The Summit Court is an unrestricted 2,7 Summit Courtvenue with multiple opportunities to leave an IED in 43 dose proximity to large numbers of people. There are no noticeable physical security measures in place. OPERATIONAL BASED THREAT:, Small-arms (active shooter) assault in Summit court and customer service area. VULNERABILITY: The Summit Court is an unrestricted venue with large numbers of people. There are no. noticeable physical security measures in place. SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 14 SENSITIVE HOMELAND- SECURITY INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, LAW ENFORCEMENT'SENSITIVE OPERATIONAL BASED THREAT: Detonate a VBIED• in the Multilevel parking garage at the SW corner of the 2 Parking Garages mall facility or in the Underground 1, level parking (currently under construction) on the west side of mall. 30 VULNERABILITY: Vehicles are not screened or checked prior to entering the parking-garages. OPERATIONAL BASED THREAT: 'Insert hazardous 3,4,6 material into the HVAC intake. 36 HVAC VULNERABILITY:, Overcome roof access padlock or y force Security doors to gain access to'HVAC System. t SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE ' 15 , SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 6. PROTECTIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ; 6.1 Buffer Zone Description ..Washington Square Mall is located in Tigard, Oregon southwest of downtown Portland in northwest Oregon. The mall is adjacent to the General Description: intersection'of Rout4es 210 & 217. Interstate 5 is east of the mall. Accesses to the mall from highway 217 are the Greenburg Road, Scholls Ferry Road and Hall Boulevard exits. Countyor Counties: Washington,County Tigard City Council Local Government(s): Craig Dirksen craigd@ci.tigard.or.us Boundaries Washington Square is bordered to the N by Hall Boulevard, to the west and south by highway 217, and to the east by'Greenburg. Populated Areas Around Washington County has a population of 445,000 and an area of 724 Facility square miles. The city of Tigard has a population of 45,000 and an' area of 10.9 miles. Major Transportation Washington Square Mall is approximately 21.3 miles SW of Portland Routes (i.e., roads, rail International Airport, 2.2 miles NE of the Greyhound bus station, and lines, waterways) 10.5 miles SW of the Amtrak Portland-Union Station. Interstate 5, which runs north to south is just east of the mall. Boundary/Perimeter Video surveillance and security patrols. Protection Mechanisms Surrounding Critical There are 3 schools within a 1 mile radius and 5 hotels less than Infrastructure one mile from the mall. Tigard Police Department 13.125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Location of Police/Fire/ • Rescue in Relation to 97223 headquarters is kapproximately 2.4 miles SE of the site.`The Facility Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue 20665 SW Blanton St., Aloha, Oregon 97007 headquarters.is approximately 7.8 miles NW of the site. 6.2 Buffer Zone Images SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 16 ' SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION.- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ' -LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 6.3 Security Implementation'Table Overall security within and surrounding this CI/KA site will be significantly increased through implementation of the buffer zone protection measures recommended below.. These protective measures reduce the risk associated with specific operational based threats. ' HSAS TYPE OF PROTECTIVE WHY? " WHO? STATUS LEVEL ACTION MEASURE w Is ^ fro .n }•ra :ze Devalue AWI Install vehicle Prevent Management Recommend I Detect, barriers at main VBIED entrances attack. 1 Roving patrol Crime Mall security In Place ir`=~tgz s Prevention s Ly s" Normal Police Crime Tigard PD In Place ,4 r patrol: prevention. ' als` ~r~syt' ~ Deter Augment locks Prevent Management Recommend k with an alarm unauthorized Mall Security. ¢'r' system to restrict access to roof access roof and intro I~ of 01 contaminant iGREE°' r" to HVAC. g4,<° Utilize allocated Improve Tigard PD Recommend _3 e^V .lt "L' ''3°•~:.;x space to establish police DHS a police office at response way the facility. and detection of terrorism. `R, Install Police; Enable Tigard PD Recommend 1-42 . ` T } 0 Defend band repeaters in police DHS ~ws mall. to include., communicati 4 link between ons inside ` Tigard PD and the facility s4cs Mall security. and fir interoperable communicati ryefiV} ons with mall x~ security. Affl Devalue Detect Deter Defend YELLOW Devalue ;(Elevated) Conduct terrorism Train mall Tigard PD Recommend Detect . ` awareness security and ` training ' staff. SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 22 ~ • SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION- FOR' OFFICIAL USE-ONLY, LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE ' Post security.:in Deter attack.. Management Recommend Deter food court during peak hours. Defend. j .fir ~ Devalue 1'. Broadcasts and Raise Management Recommend' signs warriing not awareness/ r w~ Detect to leave bags Detect IEDs ORANGE unattended. Additional Police Deter/detect Tigard PD Recommend g w~ rv' f}x.jY;: Deter patrols.' suspicious activity. r it 4 •s~~~;' M a, Defend Devalue Limit mall access Deter. Mall Security Recommend points. attacks/ Detect IEDs. Establish • Deter Tigard PD Recommend ED Detect checkpoints. attacks/ Mall security (Sev a Detect IEDs: Institute Deter Mall Security Recommend personnel and attacks/ bag searches' Detect. IEDs. Deter Defend 6.4 Correlation. of Threat Levels SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 23 SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION - FOR`OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 8.4 Recommended Enhancements - - - ITEM QUANTITY PURPOSE UNIT TOTAL' ` REQUESTING PRICE AGENCY. i Provide Tigard Police I Police-Band with the ability to $10,000 $10,000 Tigard PD Repeater 1 communicate inside I the mall. Portable police Provide ability for 'radios mall security officers i (Motorola MTS 7 to communicate with , $3,820 $26,740 Tigard PD ` 5000) and Tigard Police. charger, Provide Tigard Police w/ enhanced.mall Hardware, i .presence, access to computer, ! 2 police data systems; . $1500 $3,000 Tigard PD . integrated, w/ enhance networking,, printer logistical support, . cyber security and I detection. Handheld i For emergency police ` computer 2 $500 $1,000 Tigard Pm (omp) response application. SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY.INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection f~ Protective Security Division - Protective Measures Section ~J~!`-f Buffer Zone Protection Plan Program VULNERABILITY REDUCTION PURCHASING PLAN VRPP NO. DATE Washington Square Mall 9595 SW Wash. Sq. « Rd., Tigard; OR 97223 ADDITIONAL T' ADDITIONAL BZPP SITE(S) ADRESS(ES) , Tigard Police 13125 S.W. Hall Department Blvd., Tigard, OR' 97223 Lt. Darwin DeVen 503 639-6168 x2569 11965 ci.ti ard. 503 572 4187 c EQUIPMENT AND RELATED ITEMS ITEM AEL NO. NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT COST QTY. TOTAL COST' 1 6.6 Repeater $10,000.00 1 S10;000.00 '2 6:6.21.4 Installation, repeater $500.00 1 $500.00 3 6.2 Radio, ~ ortable wlchar er $3,820.00 7 $26,740.00 4 4.14 Hardware, computer, integrated w! sinter $1,500.00 2 . $3,000.00 5 4.15 Handheld com uter for Emer enc Res onse S500.00 2 $1,000.00 $0.00 S0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 VRPP GRANT:TOTAL $41,240.00 VRPP LOAN NO. EQUIPMENT RECEIVED/EN'ROUTE $0.00 GRAND TOTAL (NOT TO EXCEED $50,000) $41,240.00 Tigard Police Department RJO Darwin DeVeny/ Lieutenant REQUEST (503) 639-6168.x2569 _ 6/1/2606 AGENCY/ORGANIZATION NAME SHSA NAMEITITLE CONCURRENCE PHONE NUMBER & E-MAIL ADDRESS DATE AGENCY/ORGANIZATION NAME SAA NAME/TITLE CONCURRENCE PHONE NUMBER & E-MAIL ADDRESS DATE SENSITIVE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION VRPP Form 31-05 - FOR.OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 3/1/2005 LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM # + FOR AGENDA OF 9/13/05 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adopt a Resolution for National Incident Management System (NIMS) and Incident Command System (ICS) PREPARED BY: Mike Lueck DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Approve a city resolution formally adopting the NIMS and ICS operating premise. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Formally adopt NIMS and ICS as the City's Emergency Management Operating System. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard, specifically Police and Public Works departments, receive federal grant money for. public safety and emergency management training and equipment. The federal government recently has mandated compliance measures required to continue to receive those monies. Tigard has only a couple of compliance measures to complete prior to the October 2005 deadline and formally adopting NMS and ICS will expedite those efforts. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal: Public Safety: The program, through initial and enhancement training, will maximize the volunteer's effectiveness in emergency and non-emergency events, developing a strong partnership in emergency preparedness and community caring. The equipment purchase will help supplement the stable funds required to provide uninterrupted public safety and emergency services. The community residents, business owners, and service providers will understand their roles through effective communication to successfully enhance those services. ATTACHMENT LIST "Resolution" to adopt the NIMS and Incident Command System Operating Systems. FISCAL NOTES The City of Tigard's CERT program is federally funded through a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) grant. Police programs are also funded through federal Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention and Urban Area Security Initiative grants where they have purchased equipment and provided training back-fill. The grants are overseen by Oregon Department of State Police and Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) and managed by the City's CERT Coordinator and Police Training Officer. The City is currently drafting another application for federal grant money to support this program through 2007. _ AGENDA ITEM # 4. I D FOR•AGENDA OF September 13, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ` ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE - Award of Contract for the Construction of the SW Ash Ave Sanitary Sewer (Sewer Reimbursement District No. 35 PREPARED BY: _Q Berry DEPT HEAD OK AP Duenas CITY MGR OK C Prosser ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIE '.BOARD Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of the SW Ash Ave. Sanitary Sewer? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to NW Kodiak Construction in the amount of $110,000. INFORMATION SUMMARY On August 9, 2005, City Council approved the formation.of Sewer Reimbursement No. 35 to provide sewer service to nine lots along'SW Ash Avenue near Garrett Street. The requested approval would award the contract for the construction of the sewer. Through the City's Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program, the City will install public sewers to each lot within the Reimbursement District and the owners will reimburse the City. for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer at the time of connection to the sewer. In addition, each, owner will be required to pay a connection fee, currently $2,635; before connecting to the line. This'project was advertised for bids on August 2 and August 4, 2005, in the Daily Journal of Commerce and Tigard Times respectively. The bid opening was conducted on August 16,-2005 and the bid results are: Kodiak Construction, LLC St. Helens, OR $-110,000 Dunn Construction Portland, OR. $194,620 Engineer's Estimate $85,500 The higher than expected bids are partially from an increase of material prices during the past year spurred by the high cost of oil and fuel. Some contractors have indicated that the'material prices have risen 20% across the board over the past year. This includes higher prices for steel; concrete, PVC pipe, hauling cost, etc. Recent closures of gravel pits have doubled the cost of rock at the remaining pits. Dump sites are now.much fewer and contractors are hauling longer distances to dispose of excess material. Insurance costs and increased wages continue to drive up labor and other costs. Contractors initially absorbed the cost increases, but are generally not able to do that anymore and are now incorporating those increases in their bids. Prices received in previous bids can no longer be relied upon because of the cumulative effect of the cost increases. In addition, the contractors are aware of the unusually poor soil conditions along Ash Ave and vicinity: The soils reports for this project indicated a significant section of unsuitable soil that would require foundation stabilization during the pipe installation. A similar nearby project recently encountered unstable soils that significantly increased cost to the contractor. There is a higher risk factor that the contractors mustconsider in their bids when soil. conditions are unfavorable and sewers need to be installed relatively deep. Both contractors that submitted bids have installed sewers for the City recently and are well aware of the soil conditions and the difficulty of installing relatively deep sewers in the area. Rebidding the project at this time of the year may produce even higher bids than the low bid submitted because of the higher material prices and the fact that contractors are now extremely busy and are not apt to submit lower. prices as the summer draws to a close. Delaying the project until next spring introduces the risk of potentially higher prices for materials and labor that may result in even higher bids at that time. Based on the apparent increase in the prices for materials, past experience with similar jobs, on the soil conditions in the area, and the depths at which the sewers need to be installed, the low bid appears reasonable, even though it is almost 29% higher than the Engineer's Estimate. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Reject all bids and either rebid the project immediately, or delay the, project until spring of 2006. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1. Project location map FISCAL NOTES The amount of $2,500,000 is available in the FY 2005-06 Citywide Sewer Extension Program for this and other sewer extension projects. The available -funding is sufficient to award a contract of $110,000 to NW Kodiak Construction, LLC. heng12005.2000 hj dplash eve ss distdctkounciN9.13-05 award dirt 35 eis.doc t Attachment 1 ASH AVENUE PROGRAM FY 2005-06- SANITARY. SEWER EXTENSION - 35 REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT # T2S R1 W W.M. A PORTION OF THE . SW 1/4 OF SECTION 2 OR " Z O'MARA ST F W ~ - EDGEWOOD ST VIEW CT VICINITY MAP Revision 7 NTS AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF September 13, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Indonesian Resource Cities Exchange Re ort PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL This presentation is informational only; no Council action is required at this time. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Accept the report. INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard Library Director Margaret Barnes; Sally Mills Water Quality Program Coordinator; Marilee Davies, a teacher with the Durham Elementary School in the Tigard-Tualatin School District; and Tom Vanderplatt Water Resources Manager for Clean Water Services, recently completed the third trip of a Tigard delegation to Indonesia. Tom and Sally traveled to Samarinda and Balipapan and worked with local officials on water auditing and quality monitoring. Both cities have made substantial progress with their pilot water audit programs. In addition, Marilee and Margaret presented lesson plans and curriculum related to the conservation of water and protection of the environment. The lesson plans were presented to teachers and actually used in classrooms at schools in both cities. The lesson plans were developed by Marilee and Jo Bamdse,, another teacher, with the Tigard-Tualatin School District. A delegation from the two cities is currently scheduled to come to Tigard September 24-30, 2005. Margaret and Tom will make a presentation regarding the program and their trip and answer any questions. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Powerpoint presentation FISCAL NOTES Costs for this program are paid by USAID , -elk ~ . ~ a , - y , M~~ ~DEL•-EGATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~a1'l~.~l Exchange ~P ~~ogram~ ~ ~ ~ ` * Mazgaret Barnes fs~'`' mu ;a•,: Ct tYof lSaz'd"Ta g ti : ~aA1.1g~245t o 2 0 (Isi r, xa ,,R{`e.xxa" a~ wi Marilee Davies TigazdTualatinSchool•District Sir ~'T ~,,.~4, v♦ ~ v,,~ { i ~„a°(k ~~Sa11y~M?lls °ape --Y'~ ~ 1 ~ ~ , Nil , ' c ' city of Tigare Rti(a'~~, *i> ~,tyt Cs ~ • Tom V~, and~er Platt Water~Services ~ x•. - '6:: 'amarinda F Destination I "ia_.: J 1 R V Samartnda"F Gr..eet,ings ~~om Tigard`^' ri $ i3 13 x' F .f 'T ice. f~u4R ~ X. •:..`.ja'~~'ti'.',: ~a r , 1 3r g b ; s g ti Y r ~ ~M s soma' 7, 1 dr : ,::K=h : x Z w Ducussiono Pro ress -t a: z ~ L ,u~'.•'!'n.. ......y':t >`:1'p'''~,''p,,+ K d:C\~:'O?3F',j->S •ef~ ,r'C~ Saindi TIM ; x5amdrtnc~"a S: S TMI -im6ung CornpCeac. ` 1Nater flu Program~fi Lam,.. _ u 'i; ;~4tK,'•.§_ ^c 'W .cs Samarinda; x Samartn`c~ j ~tµ` Emng Intake Site F~~u'Ezn6ung IntakeaciCity ^ > .s L,..S4 `.n rte . V's i:.".`i-.i ^:~?^;'x•j it'e.V,~ ~ Y^s"~`.Y'.`~` ~ z L I 3 M. '13 likp `an k BaCikpapa g ,1Nater. Pr`es"entati ons I 2uestzonsc~2swers •r.s., .`Al"~,' tai:;, "'i:s^ :+'d,v e;``,r :v- `,C>,`tjz•.r ,'~``t`tT ~ ® ~ 5 :r. ~..a x : ~i: :,a L?~6` .y Y^/M ~ i.X` R.:, i Vy Batik ;BaCikpapan # 5'• /r^.~ ne " ;~y,%.texw~~ ~ •aJ\t•"f~c~J'+'.sri~,yy4;.§ `Cam n : 1Nater ~luitit' Pu g, ,~.langg r Reservoir . • u~ w 1l, BaCikp"apan 3 k wil'Fi! 'U, alan/y~ACCr Dam Racse x`° lod'~NellDone~ - . as 11 r .y ~ TF arty ...i. ' ~+~~z~;~~`• Sri. .y.„ t' - ' . 3 .isz Yfr'J',,',9:£"''`' ;c`r'y °a,{•';~T.3;a'K.` y,*w`:3;. .;..~4 rxT=:a r r' ar`> x 4 t o`k ~ ' ► „ ~ 3t~'"'p i', Ott u. ~z'- tsw~a~~ ,a~~?k'~C: r rS > Z~.'~~3. °t ~•c,X~~ ~:`'a~,'%y -1' ~'.t' r s': t•,•s"<, :'a'~ :`,fit',.,,' z~"~,, : ; x,°` f. =f:.~ •u `t; ~Ni. ,T~ ••.j '~kC~~, •3 i~. ''~x °;tai«''~'~'.. x s. n e Y•.. S: pN' 4 v a: X.; BWnr~~i° sa n.?F. , .:xv.:_ -i-;.}}}}iiiiti^}:v:??iiiiiiii?i2?iii-~:•: • Bcangkirai RNI rot,, Supporting .Eco'CogicaCP~~-eservation c s, c"• "'cs»;:'r: r~~ae'C:asa.u:tx': f1•,--rnc;:.?~t'.'~?;i~••`:i.'F4'`7C:::~t2a'';` y d•a~. /r`\ ' i:i :isv:isisisi;{ 53 x ~ i :T.•,,~•„`,,, eE^4,j.: ~ ; f•t <t' Wig, : ^7- r' Y, i t .i: 4 , t:';` i44 ~ iy~ ryit ~ S •,.y k> ,,,a V a ate. ~ ~ • ~ ' ~E,;,, .ci,., s~:. p.t., , • a¢c fix. V y,.:" • 1 eap "G}^li '$T.R..fi; _ `'T't'*iM,.;•a:; :I'y,t' •~:1.:~ "A:y„zC41 3.- a ,,yz S~xe`k'r't~,^n ~r>^^ M c~ ~~•t a, a,F,+ ti: a~a ri. ate' ~',?,~,t,.~ <.•r .x .;r ;•i~g .'°r'i-•S+- F pa i~' ~ ti m ON, sue' f ~~~i'<'•~ ~t nAkY:• w r r r' U 4Y 7 5 t v t - 23, k' •o. 'n'n,_, r.. r-emxn 4 t ^ V .uf i>i,.;•~~\;y ~:T~ ~`r.:"at~:~a.,,, `ftx:.>`'~ 5. T~: ~Y a4, t r•f ate, a~ .8, +2~µ t>.. t t" H tz .,fir.-~ a' '?t;`~?~=: p~: Ga`'t~ ~~i~'~ta ~~y'~P~r\it` ell, t • S '~i; ::t",:::'~'~`,c':. .~5,~. y,•,r ~~~ti.<.~.t~ },',.r~•`~~--,.`~ ~'v r~F::.t a!,. .':in::~~'' ~ ,H. y.,- `i~, :i .v"' L Pik 3" r ~e^ ;y\ Z4 :a ~ µP x' ~a?~"•~~=`'~ 3• , ice`; i, ~~:rS~~, m ~t~. , ~ v $ . VATEPIN' YZ+,- s';, • ,K,}M S,U , •F5~83~:4'igdia. D>:. ..i '~„~~.''R4;',Z,~:~.:: k 4bM6i2lk f 5 • x k `S $a ~ t x y tit i il. ` . KC. ~ P i i 4. 'y~-~.-~ F. is r~ ' f n _ - +Ylif a, .r : i Fr'r ;W -`i k - --••.i u v ' ° S ra.rs y - - ''.h 'Z 1 W we ,k -,~..-'Yi~.h~.ry ~ i *r-x'4a:.' ~r ~ : hx t• ~ t-.. } j -4 r N~ K w :''r``L_, I ~ 'cam i,~. ~ j N...r ,x ~ .u- y, ~~T v -~t c ~ v 'a ~~c.®cY~ r y.,, ro~ ...•'-t..r l ;y,~kt ii~`~ ~'"r.~~ ~ :r 's - r i'"''"a+,.'.~•aa.,y~e a , r~ ~ t y °c+i_.` a i~f' ra ^ ~ ~....~-•r"L ~ SA'E' ~ ~ i Ii tA;s Y. v Utz *c. r~ s; . cr-.ISM-'~ {~N ".N ~ ~ ' w~, i r~ 'i, j ~rL,S~ yypc ',r+ ~~.,Y~ sr ~„q,,.,. } ~„r J~Sa I~r i .,a{ v i { f - a ~ ~ tk11x ^z } ,.,:r-~ r•,.t'~. Y~vi4d~ 4 `..ii • -"rr + 'yYL i'..-i .t""" me . .s.x . , r ~ ~ 2 ` '~"G ' r~, i ~ ~r a'.-,r - , 3 rv' 34 a' " Y~ bj. w+_ _ °d~• f r y 4 .rs A~ ~ µy~ ♦ .r ~ , t r ~ aj, } . Jr. _f"a~'~'i~'a"~u°~~, ~ ,.•~.ir`, i .r1^i r~.r f~,,~#rry ~l~r^sJ t"}° ~ 3-lt ,A» _ i a 7 I .t ~SERGLAN I~j SARNEGEPI 1 l~' J1 1 ..1 - I r 1 v a y e ~ v I 12 1• r. _ 1 ~s Z, t y; q r t h 3ti 44, a 4a rn t t LAW 77- ^i p i y 1 ~ w ft. ~ 8 k:•. ~~yr ~~~~3 y .j i ' "~I`:'~{lam •A ~i' t•' i~'~ - ~ his { ~ ~i ~ ~ O9DUND DN Y 'etaon.mnv`oeoi I F:- si i -I ~I i ~[~IrJgol'p1W r, AGENDA ITEM # Co FOR AGENDA OF September 13, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Mountain View Estates Subdivision Annexation.' (ZCA2004-00004) Arlington . Heights 3 Subdivision' Annexation (ZCA2005-00001)/Wilson Ridge Subdivision Annexation (ZCA2005-00002)/Alberta Rider/Summit Rids e Subdivision Annexation (ZCA2005-00003) PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD OK J -NCITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE CO CIL Should the City Council approve the proposed annexation requests?. ' STAFF RECOMMENDATION, Adopt the four attached Ordinances approving the annexation. requests. INFORMATION SUMMARY City Council held a public hearing on,these four annexation.requests•on August 9, 2605.' Prior to the hearing, staff provided Council with supplemental, findings demonstrating compliance with ORS Chapter 222, and excluding Ms. Alberta Rider's life tenancy area' -from the annexation since consent to the annexation had not been obtained from her. Staff revised the map and legal description to reflect this change. During the hearing, an umber of residents provided testimony, and two-of the applicants (for Wilson Ridge and Arlington Heights 3) spoke in support of the annexation requests. Several individuals requested 'that the record remain open for 7 days to allow submittal of additional written comments. Upon direction from the City Attorney' the Council closed the public hearing portion and held the record open for written comments until August 16, 2005 at '5:00. Twelve individuals submitted comments during that period as shown in ATTACHMENT 4. Staff also provided written responses to the questions raised as shown in ATTACHMENT 2. The. City Attorney prepared legal findings_to respond to the comments that were raised during the August 9th hearing, and these have-been included with each annexation package, ATTACHMENTS 3 through 6. On August 23, 2005, the City Council, moved to continue consideration as a result-of a.request byJulie Russell to hold the record open in order to respond to the staff and City Attorney responses to testimony at the August 9, 2005 Council Meeting. The record was held open until August 30, 2005 at 5.00 pm. The Council's motion was to accept written testimony. aimited to only new information. presented in the staff and City Attorney responses. Two emails were received prior to the deadline (ATTACHMENT 7). All four annexations represented here comprise 63 parcels totaling 46:15 acres. As indicated in the staff report to City Council, the proposed annexations meet the applicable standards. Pursuant to, Chapter 18.320.020.C of the Tigard Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan designation'and the City's zoning is automatically applied to property upon approval of the annexation by Council. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . Deny the annexation request, approve annexation of only some of the parcels, or include additional "island" parcels into the annexation proposal. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY. Growth and Management Goal #2: Urban Services are provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth boundary and recipients of services pay their share. ATTACHMENT LIST . 1. Testimony Received After Close of the Public Record burin 7-day Written Comment Period 1. Email from Mark Padgett, received August 16, 2005. 2.. Fax from Sean Foushee, applicant for Mt. View Estates, received August 15, 2005. 3. Letter from Alpha Community Development, applicant for Wilson Ridge, received August 16, 2005 4. Letter from Tom Weber, applicant for Arlington Heights 3, received August 16, 2005 5. Email from Julie Russell, received August 16, 2005 6. Letter from LaVelle and Marie Day, received August 16, 2005 7. Email ,from Jackie and Gary Kisling, received August 16, 2005 8. Letter from Henry Kane, received August 16, 2005 9. Email from Jim Wolf, dated 8/16/05 10. Email from Bill Dickinson, dated 8/16/05 11. Email from Lisa Hamilton-Treick, dated 8/16/05 .12. Email from Phil Decker, dated 8/16/05 2. Response from Staff to Questions Raised During 8/9/05 Hearing. 3. ZCA 2004-00004 (Mountain View Estates Annexation Package) Staff Report to the City Council Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222 Findings in Response to Comments "Draft" City. Council Ordinance -Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Tax Map Exhibit C: Vicinity Map 4. ZCA 2005-00001 (Arlington Heights 3. Annexation Package) Staff Report to the City Council Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222 Findings in Response to Comments "Draft" City Council Ordinance Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Tax Map Exhibit C: Vicinity Map . 5. ZCA 2005-00002 (Wilson Ridge Annexation Package) Staff Report to the, City Council Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222 Findings in Response to Comments "Draft" City Council Ordinance Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Tax Map Exhibit C: Vicinity Map 6. ZCA 2005-00003 (Alberta Rider Summit Ridge Annexation Package). Staff Report to the City Council Supplemental Finding Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222 Findings in Response to Comments "Draft" City Council Ordinance Exhibit A: REVISED Legal Description (Excluding Ms. Alberta Rider's Life Tenancy Area) Exhibit B: REVISED Tax Map (Excluding Ms.. Alberta Rider's Life Tenancy Area) Exhibit C: Vicinity Map 7. Testimony Received After Close of the Public Record on August 23rd During 7-day Written Comment Period 1. Email from Julie Russell and attachment from Stephen Poage, received August 30, 2005 . 2. Email from Julie Russell and attachment from Stephen Poage, received August 30, 2005 FISCAL NOTES There is no direct fiscal impact resulting from annexing the properties. Costs associated with provision of city services will be offset by the collection of SDC's at time of development. l ATTACHMENT ZCA2004-00004 Mountain VieW Estates Annexation ZCA2005-00001 Arlington Heights 3 Annexation ZCA2005-00002.Wilson Ridge Annexation ZCA2005-00003 Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge Annexation Testimony Received After Close of the Public Record During 7-day Written Comment Period Deadline for Additional Written Testimony: 5:00 p.m., August 16, 2005 I. 'Email from Mark Padgett, received August 16_, 2005. 2. Fax from Sean Foushee, applicant for ML View Estates, received August 15, 2005: 3. Letter ' from Alpha Community Development,' applicant. for Wilson Ridge, 'received August 16, 2005. 4. Letter from Tom Weber, applicant for'Arlington Heights 3, received August 1.6, 2005. 5. Email from Julie Russell; received August 16, 2005 6. Letter from LaVelle and Marie Day, received August 16, 2005 7. Email from Jackie and Gary Kisling; received August 16, 2005 8. Letter from Henry Kane, received August 16, 2005 9. Email from Jim Wolf, dated 8/16/05 10. Email from Bill Dickinson, dated 8/16/05 11. Email from Lisa Hamilton-Treick, dated 8/16/05 12. Email from Phil Decker, dated 8/16/05 Cathy Wheatley - from Marvoadgett re: annexation -1 Page 1,1 I From: "Mark Padgett" <mark@padgett,net>. To: <cathy@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/16/2005 9:08:50 AM Subject: from"Mark Padgett re: annexation' Cathy - please add this email to the written record that was held open until . today (Aug. 16, 2005). Thank you. Councilors- as 1 have'listened to.the people from the unincorporated area of Bull Mountain testify,-one underlying theme has been running through their statements. They seem to think that you have the same level of obligation to represent their wishes, as you do for City of Tigard residents. This is•just not the case. We all know that the annexation issue.is really one of taxing equity for the people of our city. Allowing even more - property to develop outside the City when the property will be occupied by more people who will be using most of the City's resources at the same.level of City residents is just not in the best interests of our residents and adds to this taxing inequity. Perhaps the best illustration. of this came in the testimony of one Bulb Mountain resident (as quoted in last week's'Tigard Time's) that he is % "already using the.-Tigard library and parks". This.is exactly the point ' I implore you. to first and foremost keep in mind the best interests of the citizens of Tigard. You are not'an elected body from anywhere else. If the Bull Mountain residents want you to represent their interests at the same . level of those'of Tigard residents, then they should annex.. Until then, let them find their recourse from their chosen government, the Board of County Commissioners. That's their choice.' must tell you. l certainly am not the only citizen of Tigard who would resent subsidizing the.eventual residents of even more property; I hope you agree with me that you should annex.this property.and all other property; that presents itself in the same manner. Let's do what's best'for the citizens you truly represent Please note I am writing this, as a private citizen and, not as.a representative of the Planning Commission. Thank you: Mark Padgett voice 503.590.5226 fax 503.590.5227 cell 503.997.MARK email mark@padgettnet x`OM.S, ea• ENT R S•~•,D E v z s ACC.AU ru 4 12.583 S Qg 9722 T.IG P'RV.6-1 0.9'39 tso3503) 60-493$ ' 't g.AIJ SMI~T A ' FAG5IMIi'E - , vtv'obc x°'mes TO'~ T qnrF.; SAVO caves v -Y CONSP~` f0 tALO, OF YAG INCLUI3tNG ty o£.TigqAra` 2 NGE14L'1i13Eg; F n NV -go SENDER'S ggPERB 3-b70 939 5()3-6&4-729 NGL NUR: 4]r10NE N UMQER Y OUR ~T~~ A exatiot~~-N£ -Vi Volun~' . • ' " PLEASE ~OYGLL PLriAss gLPLY LLN'r V LE KLVY `N fl ASL i:OR ❑ URCI~,23T g ~ZOm use' ~ axe mow you x~quize ~y~ ' , you; ' Inc- Aoo 503-670-4939. 503-914„900 cell. . r 1 y. ty~0 4LHM 'fiAl HOMES" August 15, 2005 4X$an ~racy ' ~sgoc~,ate Planner - . ofTigazd , City} blvd. 3 13125 SW 9223 Tiggd OF ' at 1215 SW B~£$end erty, Ivjr. Trams'.. UnciXixiS A he prod igard• tial xa~es is vOlvintaxily nt ~tesideri .stares de„elop~~t~ into the city( AP..he View ~ . SixieerelY$ , S Foushee. presidedtpipes,l~?e . f . ' . • . -Q l Ali c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 15, 2005 RECEIVED PLANNING Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner AUG 1 2005 City of Tigard 13125 Hall Blvd.'' CITY OF TIGARD Tigard, OR 97223' ; 2e: ZCA 2005-00002 ORD 05-11 Dear Mr. Tracy- f Pursuant to the comments raised at the August 9, 2005 meeting of Tigard City Council,. please note the following with regard to the proposed annexation .of the Wilson Ridge subdivision: • It is.the applicant's assertion, which can be readily verified by the map at right, that the proposed annexation of the Wilson Ridge' subdivision does -not create an "island" or irregular City boundary. Instead, the proposed annexation is effectively a southerly extension of City limits formed by the Three Mountains Estates : • " subdivision located due north across SW Bull Mountain Road. Additionally, the Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal without . objection, and has not made any'comment with regard to difficulty of service delivery or ' J confusion of response. ` With regard tocitizens' testimony suggesting:that consent to annex was coerced in some fashion; we would like to state for.the record, as we testified before Council, that there was no pressure whatsoever to consent and that it is our wish that the subdivision. be located within City limits. Lisa Homilton's'testimony included reference to a request or deal'in principle to remove the "panhandle" portion of the site. from annexation. Alpha Community . Development wishes to make clear that the portion of land in question is part of the southwestern mostlot, and not a right-of-way or easement. Further, Yie have no knowledge of such a deal or discussions to that effect with Washington County :or City of Tigard-officials, or any other such body. N:\proj\999ac,~S~fidN40(Y00% (QarRW10Me@ft*0223 -452-8003 [F) 503-452-8043 M 503 • In her testimony, Ms. Hamilton also questioned the density of the proposed 14-lot Wilson Ridge subdivision; stating that it may be incompatible with neighboring properties/developments in that it is too dense. Please note that as applicant, Alpha Community Development designed the subdivision to comply with City of Tigard R-7 zoning, which governs this site within the Urban, Service Area. Even if Washington County R-6 (6 units/acre) zoning had been.in effect, the resulting. subdivision would have contained -the, same number of lots/units. Density calculations are as follows:. City of Tigard R-7 ' Washington County R-6 . gross area' 116;630 sq. ft. gross area 116,630 sq. ft. ' - right of way 31,824 sq. ff. 2.68 acre private street 6,758 sa. ft x 6 units = net, area 78,105 sq. ft. = 16 lots. / 5,000 sa. ft. = 15 lots max x 0.80 = 12 lots min. Being that Section 300-2.1 of the Washington .County-code states that "Site size shall: include the area of, the subject lot(s) or parcel(s), in acres,or portions thereof, excluding all areas"currently dedicated for public right-of-way," R76 density is calculated from the gross site, not the net. Therefore, it.is'the applicant's assertion that the density of:the subdivision .proposed under Tigard zoning is similar to that under Washington County, if not less. Thank you for your attention to this application and our written comments. Please do not hesitate to contact either project manager, Jeff Vanderdasson, :or me at (503) 452-8003 with any questions or concerns. ...Sincerely, ' I ALPHA COMMUNITY . MENT John Marquart Staff It Planner cc: AI Jeck, Alpha. Community Development N:\prol'\999-229\Word\adcritional annex letter.doc . , u 'TBER' r• A ERRA. ` .v........ _N . - t. •4j rr " ' Y - • , :ropertY .eve o pm rn , ....S . . .r..... en . : - - , r . . ei ' ' f . . - - . . , , Ei J A st: l5''00S: u , ; , r z . :a,.: , r r, t. .j,- - . : 1: . - - d':: 1 Ol1I1 - _ T" d . 199"',"M v. C D'. _ GAR TI r OF. , - TY Y d~ E Y •-itN t -J", . - - rte..: y. . 3 Y - . :1 : 25" .S :BW 3aU1~d . . - . r,..., . •ig am:- •,0K--3 23 T , , w : - . . 1 - • . e7Anmeu.. - . - '2005=00001 1~ Re o. .Clung _ - . - ) . - - ; . _ f _ Y.. Jr . r.. : : r._ _ _ , . _...,:ti- .q• _ - - _ - F.: -unicilo - eacC o - i D rS . - s - - :k'''.: - - - Y . t `4 • ♦ - :'.2-- 1 r r C - - : - . . : ;f, `1` `on' ei We-are:the::Qwner/Developers o AF tng`t ghtso - 3 that is liein 'cons'idered for - g'. _ f - y ' t was adAec~ t" r f ;T edJ~ t1ie: ~ii - annexaho n,.~nto ~e o ~ bhc hearin 'hO& ri A~ ~ st_~ y.: to fhe.record o en,for..7.:, da s.in ord % erto7ec, ve additional reformation To'tliat "end _ P Y i - w' ,ul e fo° o~vi ri Dire - . d Lke to offer'th . ll ts' : .F: ''1 o g:p . . _ - - - w . ~ .,..Vi'i' ' c . i_ - _~n. uestion':and it=is=our d ir` - _ 1: We `own es a to a aadexed 'to the City - the Prti artY - _ _ P' I, - - of T _ d. - . , _ • - 2- Whether,the; City requires adnexation or not hchoose to be an aex.e .m:or, • = - - - : , r fi f 1Demga resides f _ ' _ . , .•seceive- the, ene is Q t'o the 4 Ci _ _ . ' . . : . 3 n: reed- afie` i. - - ° -,.-.-----.--~l n t "ee coe b Co'`anne" Ve have o b- xe ate involved>n:othet' .t =y ro ects :that are: not cgnh 'ous to :the C limits't iut-i the °tiid I - _ - - " wo - v - , , ,annex - . vo n Y d - _ - - M14 T believe the City>fias;everq:right to require annexation if ~ity:ser~ices are' _ extended to accommodate deveYopment::Tlus is :an accepted dice i . other ° " - - . . Jurisdictions r : ; . r. : y.:::. t_ ; . _5:.=`The _Fnends .of.BullaVlountam.,::do,not represent me or anyone: ^1~ow::T1ie` d all &the'benefits`fro . seem to dea an m, e Cif .but::, on.t wantao"' a e- 9 0..- - . . . o. s o a es d • . That:hardl seems'.fau and in'faetl Hieve that an ` ` n .w ``:ec :h -n:-t` r i s el ....Y: Yb - . , ofahe`'Cx does'not''ha've a standin 'g° in tYiese°~ roceed" -s ' i . . . . . P... - . - . _ :,4.:;:. _ - a , _ - , :..:...A asthe.Qwners-of-tbesu_b.'ect:Pro a Iur e:.outo: aahis annexatio n. gani, J P g PPro...ve • -1 . ' `t,dela - withou uest F Y - _ - " e . tail ours , V rY Y:Y: - . e _ . - o - , r'a. . _ , . _ _ . _ , Terra-Webe Lh - . . . 12755 SW, 69th Ave., Suite 100, 'Portland, OR 97223 • Office: 503.517.8284 • Fax: 503.601.3.524 . . Page 1 of I council mail councilmail - Annexation Testimony From: "Julie Russell" <jarussell59@comcast.net> To: <catlry@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Craig Dirksen" <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Nick Wilson" <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Sydney Sherwood" <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Tom Woodruff' <tomw@ci.tigard.or.us> ' Date: 8/16/2005 11:58 A1v1 Subject: Annexation Testimony Dear yCathy',; Please submit my written testimony regarding the annexation of the four properties on the-agenda last week My. testimony is attached. Best Regards, . Julie Russell . I August 16, 2005 Julie Russell 12662 SW Terraview Dr Tigard, OR 97224 Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am submitting my written testimony to oppose the, annexation of the four properties (Mountain View Estates, Arlington Heights 3, Wilson Ridge and Alberta Rider/ Summit. Ridge.) I testified against this annexation on August, 9, 2005 and request that my written testimony be made part of the public record. I. would have hoped that the council would. have, considered the defeat of the Bull Mountain annexation vote in Nov. of 2004. Where 89% of the residents' of the mountain, clearly stated that they did not want to be annexed to Tigard., Ifis quite clear from your aggressive strategy 'that Tigard intends to proceed by forcing builders to annex by denying building permits, unless they agree to annex. It is also quite. clear that you intend to create irregular boundaries and islands, thus taking away property owner's right to vote on annexation decisions. This is abusive and bad public policy. The Oregon legislature did pass some laws this session to change annexation policy. HB . 2484 guarantees a dual majority vote,.and SB 887 prevents island annexation for at.least two years.. I think Tigard needs to be careful to follow the intent of these laws that have been passed and will continue to be passed to protect the rights of residents to choose whom will govern them. I disagree with Tigard's assumption in the Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.,1.1. The city.shall maintain an ongoing,citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process....' Tigard doesn't have or recognize any Neighborhood Planning Organizations in the Unincorporated *area, (Urban Service Area), and Tigard has admitted they do not recognize CP04B.-CP04B is the Citizen Participation Organization for Bull Mountain and parts of Tigard. Tigard has openly stated they will not send city staff to CP04B meetings and do not acknowledge the CPOs as they are organized by Washington County. Asa result, unincorporated Bull Mountain residents have no recognition in community organizations in the city. Tigard limits the involvement of unincorporated Bull Mountain residents on committees in Tigard, and refuses to appoint those residents to various committees, such as the budget committee. I believe this violates the policy. Also Tigard does not involve citizens in the pre-application meetings, unlike Lake Oswego. Tigard did not notify every property owner in. Arlington Heights 1 and 2 regarding this hearing. Those property owners could be affected if this annexation. passes, as they will become an island, and could be annexed . without a vote. I dispute Tigard's findings in Policy 10.1.2. Tigard admits that none of these. annexations eliminate an existing "pocket". or "island" of unincorporated territory. Tigard states that. these annexations will not create an irregular,boundry. This proposed annexation will definitely create irregular boundaries and difficulties'for. service providers to know if the property is inside or outside of city limits.' The Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge proposal states that it is addressing a situation where parcels fall in and outside of city limits. Their formation is the result of disjointed annexation and plat approval timing. This was,, due to the annexation in Dec. 2004 that again created irregular,`inconsistent boundaries. The Tigard Code 10. specially states the requirement a. The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket".or "island" of unincorporated territory; or b.' The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside of city limits. These four annexations do not comply' with either of these requirements. The Washington County Sheriff's Department did not have the opportunity`to comment on these annexation requests and the affect on the service of the area, and the affect of the withdrawal'of those properties from the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District. I dispute CDC Section 18.320.020. This area has been•identified as severely park deficient by Washington County in the Bull Mountain Community Plan in 1983, and the City of Tigard. There are no solutions for sufficient capacity to remedy the lack of parks. Annexation to Tigard, by allowing additional homes with no identified parks or open- space only increases this deficiency. Tigard has a goal of providing l 1. acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, but currently only has 8 acres per 1,000 residents. These annexations only create more of a park deficiency for Tigard. I also dispute the fact that the roads and transportation plan can handle the additional capacity created by these subdivisions. Bull Mountain Road. and Beef Bend Road are the only access points to Hwy'99, which is at or near capacity at every intersection through Tigard per ODOT. Additional building permits only make the already overloaded Highway 99 worse. These subdivisions also give access to collectors and aterials of Beef Bend Road and Bull Mountain Road, Which the Washington County code and transportation plans say few access points should be granted.. I dispute the timing and assignments of the zoning designations as, they completely ignore the Bull Mountain Community Plan zoning, which still identifies the slopes and summit as being. low density; not medium density, and the zoning per `the Bull Mountain Community Plan is still R-6, or 6 lots per acre not 7,. The assignment of these designations shall occur. automatically and concurrently with the annexation. So Why, was Summit Ridge allowed to build at R-7 designations;' when it was not annexed to Tigard and still under Washington County zoning of R-6? I dispute the fact that all residents were notified of the proposal to annex parts of Bull Mountain Road and Beef BendRoad. This is not clear 'on the vicinity map. -Which roads or parts, of roads are actually being annexed? Who was notified? All surrounding residents and affected property owners? When' did parts of Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend Road become city streets? The Washington County Transportation Plan still identifies: them as county streets. I do not know of any, residents or Citizen Participation Organizations being advised that any roads in the area have experienced a change in jurisdiction. What about the. residents east of SW 113 3`d? This could create an island for all of those property owners. What comments were received by the Wasliington County Sheriff's department and other-service providers about these irregular boundaries and islands? Who will service those areas, and how will this confusing patchwork of boundaries be serviced? I dispute Metro 3.09 conclusions. The proposed annexation will interfere with the timely, orderly and economic provisions,of public facilities and services. Public facilities and services are provided by various service districts and do not require annexation in order . to continue those services. I oppose the annexation file of Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge Annexation. Alberta Rider is a public school and should not be required to annex to Tigard prior to receiving a final building permit: I believe again this, is very, bad public policy and quite probably illegal.. The only thing to be gained by requiring Alberta Rider Elementary School to annex is the surrounding of neighboring property, and, the creation of islands to continue the aggressive-annexation policy of Tigard. Also the property owner Alberta Rider did not consent to annex to Tigard. Alberta Rider and Summit Ridge should not be,processed in the e-same annexation' one is owned by the Tigard/Tualatin'School District and the other is a private developer. I oppose the Summit Ridge annexation, as Arbor Summit and Summit Ridge were not bordering city limits, when they, were annexed in Dec.' of 2004.. I also dispute the statement that a double majority method was used for one of the parcels of Summit Ridge; Venture Properties is not an elector mi the area, but simply the developer, so how did that election take place, and how can the future residents beheld accountable to this hosfile'annexation? I'disagree with the statement that some of the property in Arbor Summit and. Summit Ridge were inside the city and some outside of the city. None of thisproperty was inside of the city prior to the development of the property and annexation in Dec. 2004. I oppose the annexation of the Arlington Heights 3 subdivision on the grounds that they are annexing to the Arlington Heights Homeowners Association and are part of the Arlington Heights Neighborhood:.Arlington Heights l and 2 are not annexed to Tigard and were approved under•county land use regulations, in 1997. 1-don't believe Tigard can' legally annex only oneportion of a subdivision. Respectfully; Julie Russell RECEIVED C.O.T. AU G 16 2005 " August 15,.2005..; Administration City Council L: o 7 /I.. Tigard, Oregon } Re: Annexation of 'arrroximately 47 acres on Bull Mountain . 'Dear Mayor Dirksen and City Council Members, . We understand that the record is being held open until August 16, 2005. We are submitting these comments and request that they be made a part'.of the public record on this matter. It is very obvious that the City of Tigard is trying to strategically annex land in a manner to prevent the citizens of unincorporated Bull Mountain from considering annexation to King City as an alternative to annexing to Tigard. This would also. cause problems for considering the option of incorporating. as a new city. It is still the same of pressure tactics that Tigard has used during the past number of years and it is very tiring. However, it has made us absolutely more determined-to help the Friends of Bull. Mountain to challenge this and any other tactic that the City..'of Tigard comes up with to hamper an orderly, considered approach to. what would be best for the unincorporated area of Bull Mountain. We think it is unconscionable that the City of Tigard has put such great pressure on'developers'to get their testimony in support of the annexation. ,From the developer who testified, his testimony stated the following facts: 1. That the developer has several projects going on in Tigard. 2. That his Bull Mountain project is'being held up because of this annexation proposal. He stated that he hoped a decision would not be delayed; otherwise he would "lose. the current season". 3. That he lived in an apartment in Tigard, not a condo or town house'or separate home. t That suggests that it is'not a permanent arrangement, even though he can say with all sincerity that he is a resident of Tigard. As a developer with multiple projects going on in the City of Tigard that doesn',t fit the normal developer's life style. Within the, scope .of discretion.that the City of Tigard can legally.enforce when working with. developers, this developer's life could be made "much easier", if he sides with the City. If he were to object or to remain neutral, his life could be made "hellish". Can anyone prove these statements? The answer is, no! But it fits the pattern. of the city with this proposed annexation, with the one vote group position of the City on the previous election (until'public pressure ` caused a change), with the required signing of statements requiring an unincorporated residents to sign to get services, which state they will not contest annexation and with other such- tactics exercised by the City. An understanding' person, could ask the question, "What other position could-this developer take than to, support this annexation?" The answer is simple, "NONE". The city has forced him: into this position. We find it difficult to believe that he would willingly on his own initiative ask to be annexed to the city with it,costing him considerable delay.and money. He is already concerned about "losing the season". He is a business man. He wouldn't make that kind,; of decision..The city has forced him into this position Without the developer's support, you have no annexation:. Annexation was turned down by the voters, which we support. We are opposed to this annexation.and intend to pursue every legal means to stop pit- Unfortunately this developer is caught in. the middle and will be hurt the most., It is unfortunate that. the City has placed him in this position. Lavelle & Marie Day dyes 5• SW /`~.c~ T" PC i "S~ A vi council mail councilmail.- Bull Mountain Annexation . From: "Jackie & Gary Kisling Home" <garykislifig@coriicasi.net>` To: <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: •8/16/2005 3:52 PM Subject: Bull. Mountain Annexation y Mayor Dirksen and Council Members, We wish to oppose the annexation of the four propert ies designated by the Tigard City Council, as well as all other remaining unincorporated properties on Bull Mountain that. were not designated. We live in Mountain Gate. We voted against annexation in Nov. of 2004. You should' remember that 90%0 of the voters said "No." This was followed by BB2484 and BB2722. These laws are, to protect the residents of the affected properties. ; Your approach has been and continues to be"that of a hostile takeover. We know that Tigard, has a big budget problem that would, be resolved by higher taxes imposed on, unincorporated Bull Mountain residents.' Your approach continues, to be aggressive and without respect for the wishes and legal rights of the,residents. You hold a very important position mi city government. You should be a good listener,a . skilled long range planner, and have the ability and know-how to negotiate for a. compromise that leaves all sides committed. If you.can't think of anyway to'negotiate a compromise with Bull Mountain residents you need .help from those of us in unincorporated Bull Mountain! : „ . Jackie & Gary Kisling 14485 SW Peachtree Dr. Tigard, OR 97224 503=590-5753 RECEIVED C.O.T. - Henry Kane 12077 SW Camden Lane AUG 1.6 2005 Beaverton, Oregon 97008 503.643-4054 Administration HAND-DELIVERED Ld •3August 16, 2005 Mayor and Councilors Tigard City Council 13125'SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Objection to forced 'annexation of unincorporated territory in reliance on forced annexation provision of ORS 222:750 on ground forced-annexation violates Oregon Constitution, Article ll;' §§.1 and.2 Mayor Dirksen and Councilors: Attached to this letter are pages 111-15 of a Court of Appeals brief stating in substance, that the Oregon Constitution forbids the legislature to enact. a law purporting to-forbid a qualified voter to vote. In'addition to the cases cited in the attachment,. see Livesley v. Litchfield,'47 Or 248- 49, 88 Pacific142,.headnote 3 (1905): ."3. The provisions of Salem charter: * * * prohibiting any person from voting at any'election of said city who has not paid. a road poll tax for the year in which he offers to vote, unless exempt as otherwise in said charter provided, is void as in conflict with Const_ Or. Art. 11, ..4 2, prescribing the qualifications of electors at all elections not otherwise provided by said constitution." (emphasis added) ORS 222.750 "island annexations" without allowing residents and property owners to. vote on whether they wish to be annexed also violates the Equal Protection of the Laws and Due Process of Law Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Please consider this.letter formal notice that if the City of Tigard attempts to annex unincorporated territory in reliance on_ ORS 222.750 without allowing a vote., the undersigned will offer oral and written testimony opposing forced annexation, and will pe I a orced annexation order to the Land Use Court of,Appeals. n K En no .paragraph) ; We phasize again what Chief Justice Waite'said in Munn v. 111ino 94 U. S. 113, 134, 'For protection against abuses by legislat es the people must resort to the polls, not to the courts.'". (em asis added) 1 Neither the Board. r the city has cited -any appellate court d ision rejecting a constitutional-ch.al.le a to a right to vote statute.w' a holding stating in substance that "the people must r ort to the polls, n to the courts.". Id. There is a fundamental-distinction b ee a constitutional right to vote and the right to engage in a. calling or profe ion. ` Restrictions or denial of the ri to vote is subs t to strict scrutiny.., -In contrast, casenotes 1 of Meadows v. Odom, 36 Supp.2d 811 (M.D.La.' 2005) held: "1. T right to.pursue -the 'common occupations of life' i a protect liberty interest,: subject to reasonable limitations." °2. State legislatures may choose which industries, professions, occupations require'regulation and to what degree they should be regulated within each industry, profession, or occupation, without" violating the Equal Protection Clause." (emphasis added) FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR. Respondent's denial of the right to vote in reliance on ORS 222.750 violates . sections 1 and 2 of Article 1l 'of the Oregon Constitution. Argument Preservation of Error Respondent's. adherence to the state and. federal constitution in the appeal at bar is jurisdictional, hence a constitutional issue may be raised for the first time pn appeal. 12 Respondent forcibly annexed-,the unincorporated territories at issue Without.' allowing. residents and property owners-to vote on whether they supported annexation, in reliance. on the following, "without the. consent" option of ORS 222.750: " * * * annexation by a" city under this section shall be~ y ordinance or resolution; subject to referendum, with or without the consent of any owner of property within the territory or resident in the territory.".(emphasis added) Oregon :Constitution,.Article, .ll, section 1,' provides: : "All elections shall be free and equal:" Oregon Constitution, Article. 11, section 2 provides in :relevant part: ; 11) Every citizen of the United States is entitled.to vote in all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution if such citizen: "(a) Is 18 years of. age or older; . .."(b).Has, resided in this state during the. six months immediately. preceding the election * * * and; . "(c) Is registered not less than 20 calendar days immediately preceding any election in the manner provided by law: "(2) Except as otherwise provided in section 6, Article VIII of this Constitution with respect, to the qualifications of voters in all school. district.el6ctions, provision may be made by;law.to require that.persons who vote upon.qudstions of levying special taxes.or issuing public bonds shall be taxpayers." (emphasis added)' State v,. Campbell/.Campf/Collies, 265 Or..82', 88; 506•P2d 773, 314 P2d .912 . (1973) cited,with approval an earlier election,-law case*for the following rule: '"'Such legislation, however; must be reasonable, not curtailin-g the right or, placing any undue burden upon its - exercise': Nor may.,it'hamper or.render ineffective the power.reserved by the people': (emphasis added) The Court held at 2,65 Or 88789: However, not every legislative. provision which tends to prevent fraud is necessarily valid. In W.oodWard v' Barbur; 59 13 Or 70, 116 P 101 (1911) and in State ex re/ Fleck v..Dalles City, 72 Or 337, 3460347, 143 P 1.127 (1914) it was held that, municipal ordinances which restricted the right to sign petitions f to registered voters were'inValid because in conflict with the . constitutional provision extending the right of initiative to the 'legal voters of municipalities. (emphasis added) The case note of, State ex rel Chapman v. Applinq, 220 Or 41, 348 P.2d 759 (1960) summarized the case: ; * * * The Supreme Court, Lusk, J., held that the constitutional amendment providing that members of legislature shall receive for their services a salary of. $600 per annum gives the legislature no power to enact statute increasing compensation for services to $175 per month.„ The Court held .at 220 Or 70: We hold, therefore, that ORS 171:071 is.unconstitutional and void. * * State ex rel Chapman, supra,-held at 220 Or 50: * * * A provision of the charter of the City of Portland which prohibited a person from voting in a municipal election who has not paid a road poll tax was in conflict with Section 2 of Article II of the constitution of this state, which prescribes the qualifications of . voters of this state. 'It will be observed that the qualifications of voters are. in affirmative, mandatory terms. The court said: The provision is by.its terms expressly made applicable to, . all elections not otherwise provided by the constitution.,* i Peterkort v. County Zoning District, 211 Orl88, 195, 313 P2d 773, 314 . P2d 912 (1957).held: .Article Il, § 2, is unambiguous and its meaning clear and not.open to construction.' "Our conclusion is that ORS 215..269 js unconstitutional as in conflict with Art 11, § 2, of the Oregon Constitution, the election held pursuant.to that statute Was-void, and the 3 "2 At the time these cases were :decided, a citizen was not required to be registered in order to be a . legal voter. Registration is now a constitutional requirement. Section 2." 14, purported county zoning district has no validity. (emphasis added) Veatch v. Cottage Grove, 133 Or 144, 145, 289 P2d 494 (1930) held::. " * * * the legislature can not pass an act in contravention of the constitution. The language quoted from said section 2, is plain and simple, and the legislature is without the power to limit voters to taxpayers where the charter of the city is involved * (emphasis added) 'The Court held at 133 Or 146 that the legislature;, by statute, cannot "prevent, non-taxpaying citizens from 'voting:" "There is no pretense that the hundred non-taxpaying voters . were disqualified in any other way than that they did not pay taxes. There is no claim that the election attacked in this action is 'otherwise . provided for by this constitution." . (no paragraph) Said article 11, section 2, as amended 'says `every citizen of the United States.' That language is broad enough to include non- - taxpaying citizens and the legislature has not the power to -.prevent non-taxpaying citizens from voting.". (Emphasis by Court): Loe v. Britting, 132 Or 572, .578, 287- P 74 (1930) held in rejecting denial to - vote on a bond issue: " * * *The right to vote in this-case; conferred by the. constitution, is a political right which attaches to every qualified voter seeking to cast. his ballot at a general or special election and a.statute which denies that right is unconstitutional because denying an existing right. * * (emphasis added) The, Court held4hat a.statute limiting the right to vote on a bond issue in'the- bond issuing district is, unconstitutional as denying the right to. vote. Ladd v. Holmes, 40 Or 167, 178, 66 P;714 (1901) held: "Article 11, § 1, .provides that all elections shall be free and. . equal: To be free means that the voter shall be left in the. untrammeled exercise, whether by civil or military authority, of his right and .privilege; that is to say, no impediment or restraint of any character shall be imposed upon him, either directly or indirectly, whereby he: shall be hindered or prevented from 15 r participation at the polls'* * (emphasis added) The city's responsive brief may claim there is no Oregon constitutional right to. vote on. annexation. The record is silent on whether either, appellate court considered Oregon Constitution, Article II, sections 1 and•,2. However, Oregon Constitution, Article 11, % and 2, prevail when there is'a conflict between the ,right to vote in -general and the city's claim of no Oregon constitutional right to vote on annexation. Therefore, the Board erred in affirming .constitutionality of ORS 222.750. SIXTH ASSIG MENT OF ERROR r The appealed LUBA Order must be remanded because Respondent's Comprehensive Plan lacks annexation 0teria and: Respondent did not rule on whether the annexation complied with Statewide Goals. A ument Preservation of Error App 2. to this brief is page 2.6f.a pellant Kane's December 17, 2005 post= hearing written testimony. It is identified as "00084" of Respondent's record submission to LUBA. The last paragrap of-App. 2,preserves Respondent's error: "Beaverton violated (ORS) 197:175(1) because the city did not consider Land Use and evelopment (LC DC) statewide development goals:" Cape v. City of Beaverton, 187 r App 463, 470, 683 P3d 261 (2003) held: "Reduced to its simplest terms, the fact that the city's plan does not address the annexation of this property,means ` that under OAR 660=001-0310 he annexation cannot be considered to be in com liance ith the goals. (no paragraph) . . The result of..that lack of com lia ice its that the annexation is subject tothe goals." (emphasis added)' Morgan Tracy- Police Services For Prop^-ed Annexation Areas Pa e 1 I From: Jim Wolf To: Morgan Tracy Date: 8/16/2005 3:58:43 PM Subject: Police Services For Proposed Annexation Areas 'Morgan, ' At this time,i Tigard Police has adequate resources to provide police services to•the areas that are being proposed.for,annexation into the City of Tigard. My information indicates the areas of discussion include, Wilson Ridge, Mountain View Estates, Arlington Heights Ill and the Summit Ridge area including the Alberta Rider School. If you need any further, clarification or comments, plea'se,contact me: , Thank you.. Jim Wolf Public Information Officer Tigard Police Department r 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 ''503.718.2561 office/voice 503.795.2391 (pager) 503.718.2645 (fax) 503.519.6804(mobile) CC: Bill Dickinson Morgan Tracy - annexation area Page 4 From: Bill Dickinson To: Morgan Tracy Date: 8/16/2005 4:41:67 PM Subject: annexation area Morgan, As a supplement to Jim Wolfs response to you, I would point out that.annexation and full development of. these properties not only would be of minimal impact to Tigard Police,, the new residents would enjoy a' staffing level which is higher than what they would receive if they were unincorporated area residents. The Tigard. Police Department is much more impacted by current in-fill, development inside the city limits than by this small annexation area. Hope this is helpful. Bill Dickinson, Chief Tigard PD ' 1 ^ 1. r Cathy Wheatley - Written Testimony on Bull Mountain Annexations Page 1 . 1f From: "Lisa Hamilton-Treick" <Lisa@HamiltonRea.tyGroup.com> To: ' "Cathy Wheatley <CATHY@ci.#igard.or.us> Date: 8/16/20054:55:44 PM Subject: Written Testimony on Bull. Mountain Annexations Re: Annexation' of Albert Rider Elementary School, Portions of Summit Ridge, Arlington "Heights 111, and Wilson Ridge ; Please add the following written comments, along,with the oral,testimony.of Lisa Hamilton Treick on 8/9/2005, to the public record. We are commenting as public citizens and residents of unincorporated Washington County. Mayor and Council Members, We oppose the combined pubic hearing process for the above annexations as it causes undue hardship on residents who may wish to challenge the land use decisions under a LUBA appeal. It forces all.four annexations to be addressed during the same 21 day deadline period and burdens the public with unnecessary expense. The decision to handle the public hearing for all four properties at the same time is acknowledged' as "an experiment" by city staff. We oppose the creation.of highly irregular boundaries and intentional formation of""islands" and "pockets" of unincorporated neighborhoods. This process significantly-contributes to a confusing service boundary, especially as it relates to the.three local and overlapping police/sheriffs service boundaries. This is in direct.violation of Tigard's annexation codes and, ordinances. It is done so with the admitted plan to eventually fill in and align the boundaries, but with no process or timeline as'to how and when that would, if ever,-be accomplished: We oppose the transfer of traffic Impact'Fees collected in" the Urban Services Area (per 2002 IGA) to ' Tigard's TIF accounts: Per.the Tigard/Washington County IGA, the funds collected, in the area defined by ' the map are to be accounted for separated in the Urban Services TIF accounts.. We oppose the use of force'to secure consent to annex in exchange for building permits. When negotiating the sale of their property, it is common practice fora buyer/builder/developer to require the seller to agree, as part of the purchase agreement,. to sign any and all documents required by the city to allow the purchaser to proceed with the pre-application and application process. If, as part of that process, the City of Tigard requires the buyer/builder/developer to consent to annex in exchange for building permits,.the citywill jeopardize the sale unless the seller consents. If property owners were acting on their own free will it is highly likely the.number of consents would'be closer to 8% to 10%, reflecting the results of the November, 2004 election, rather than the 100%. seller consent the city has stated. Thank you-for giving our comments your serious consideration. Regards, z Tom Treick and Lisa Hamilton-Treick 13565 SW Beef Bend-Rd. Unincorporated Bull Mountain \ Tigard; OR 9.7224 CC: <ttreick@comcast.net> L ath y Wheatley -City Council.Meeting, 8/91/05: Objection to Annexation of Four Parcels and each of them Page 1; C From: "Phil decker" <pd-law@comcast.net> To:':.' "Tigard Mayor, City Council" <council@ci.tigard.or.us> Date' 8/16120054:37:27 PM Subject: City Council Meeting, 8/9/05: Objection"to Annexation,of Four Parcels, and each of them f Hon. Mayor and Council Members: I am.Philip E. Decker and reside at 14540 SW 148th Place, .Tigard, OR 97224. This communication is to OPPOSE and OBJECT to the annexation to the parcels, and each of them individually (hereinafter collectively 'parcels'), identified in Item 7 of the Tigard City Council Meeting Agenda.of August 9, 2005. Grounds for said opposition and objection include,,without limit, the following: 1. Both the City of Tigard and said parcels are regulated by and subject to ORS 222.111, et seq,'as to annexation of real property to the City.of Tigard; 2. Said parcels are not'contiguous' as required by 'ORS 222.111, et seq.; 3. ORS 222.115 (Annexation contracts) is ensconced entirely within the statutory framework of ORS 222.111, et seq., which requires the parcel(s). be"contiguous to the city,"rand provides no exemption directly or indirectly to the overarching statutory requirement that parcels proposed for annexation be contiguous to the city,- 4.The requirement by the City of Tigard that the parcel owner(s) or representative(s) consent in writing to annexation of said parcel(s) as a condition of issuance of necessary building and related permits by the City of Tigard is unlawful, unauthorized by applicable Oregon, impermissibly coercive, an abuse of the police power.of the City of Tigard, a taking of property without due process of law and a conscious, - intentional and unlawful attempt to create "de facto annexations" to the City of Tigard in order to avoid and circumvent Oregon laws-applicable to annexations; ; 5. Each of the subject parcels is irregularly shaped; annexation of any of the subject parcels will create islands and, pockets of annexed territory in.violation of law, including without limit City of Tigard policy and . ordinance; , 6. The irregularly shaped parcels which are the subject of the instant annexation proposal, or some of them, are proposed for annexation to recently 'annexed' parcels' which were themselves annexed in violation of law, including without limit City of Tigard policy and ordinance, by virtue of their irregular shapes and resulting creation of impermissible islands and *pockets. Thank .you. . Philip E. Decker 1 ATTACHMENT 2' Annexation Responses from Staff In response to a number of questions that were raised at the August 9, 2005 City Council Hearing, staff has prepared the following responses. These are to be read in conjunction with'the attached findings prepared by legal counsel. Charles Radley How appropriate are conditions of approval on development to require annexation? The City Attorney has prepared findings that address this issue. See-attached findings section numbers *,and 5.: What is the nexus? Why does the landowner need to annex? The City Attorney has prepared findings that address this issue. See attached findings section number 11. Julie Russell . Why is this hearing being conducted differently? There are 4 annexations being processed concurrently.. Instead of sending four sets of notices to property owners resulting in duplication of some notices and some properties not being notified of the other annexation proposals, :a combined,-notice and hearing process was instituted. This saved $132 in postage, resources.in paper (382 notices versus 561), and staff time in preparing the notice. As for the conduct'of.the hearing, there is no difference. The applications are introduced and summarized by staff,.and opportunities to comment on one or all applications is offered. Council.will take separate actions on each annexation proposal. The intention was to make it easier for,citizens to participate in the process. How does this affect the LUBA process?' It doesn't. The same appeal procedures apply for each of the four.separate applications. Concerns about the conditional use permit. ' The conditional use permit was approved August 10, 2004 with 'a 10 day appeal period. The case was appealed by a private developer but the appeal was dropped. before the hearing commenced.- Therefore, the decision became legal'and binding on August 24, 2004. Raising a claim of the validity,of a condition at this time is invalid. The applicant has been aware of the requirement to annex.since the preapplication conference was held for the'school July 8, 2003. The school had numerous opportunities to challenge the requirement and chose not to. The standard practice is to require annexation prior 1ACDADMWERRMAnnkation Responses from Staff.doc ; 1 to commencing construction, but in the interest of facilitating the. construction of the school, staff agreed to defer the annexation requirement until final building inspection. Map seems incorrect. It shows Bull Mountain Road being `annexed. The vicinity map included with the notice is not the official annexation boundary map that is used to record the annexation. It is only intended to identify the affected parcels, and the generalized location of the proposed boundary change. This map is not -sufficient to record an annexation with'the Department of Revenue-and. other state and. regional agencies. These agencies rely on tax assessor maps and legal descriptions, which are contained in each of,the four annexation application files. ' Portions of, Bull Mountain Road will be.-annexed. Beef Bend Road will not be a part of these annexations. Disputes findings of Comp Plan #2.1.1 - "that COT notified every property owner ,affected by the annexations.:. Policy-2.1.1 requires that:. The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program Nand shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases, of the planning process. -.The, findings from the staff report state: "Interested parties and surrounding property owners within 500 feet have been notified of the public hearing and notice of the hearing has been published in a newspaper of.general.circulation. The site has been posted since June'23, 2005. There have been a.number of opportunities for citizens to be involved. in the decision making process, including the approval of the subdivision request:" The City Attorney has expounded on this issue in the.attached findings, number -12. Disputes findings of:P,olicy 1.2- these annexations create.irregular.boundaries and create islands. Council in the -past'has said they would not annex to create islands: We.assume that it is policy 10.1.2 that is being disputed. This policy requires: approval of proposed *.annexations of land by the City shall be based on findings with respect to the following: the annexation eliminates an existing "pocket or "island" of . ; . unincorporated territory; or the annexation will not create-an irregular boundary that makes it-difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City; the police. department has commented upon the annexation; the land is located within the Tigard urban-planning area and is contiguous to the City boundary; the annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(x).". There is nothing in this policy that prevents the creation of-islands; only that elimination of islands is encouraged: The council's statement regarding islands is misrepresented: I: ICDADWERREDAnnexation Responses from Staff.doc 2 the Citywill not'annex rights of way simply to create islands for later annexation. This is generally referred to as.. cherry stem annexations. That is not what is occurring here. There are distinct. parcels being annexed and the rights of way that have;been included are immediately fronting the annexed parcel. There is nothing to.prevent Tigard from annexing up to the centerline of Beef Bend Road along MountainView Estates.and Arlington Heights 3, but to remain consistent with the previous annexation of.BellaVista, this right of way was excluded. Any incremental annexation of parcels will have a boundary that is not "square" but that does not make them irregular. The annexation_boundaries either incorporate the entire . parcel (making police response easy_to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City) or excludes a particular address (as in the case of Mrs. Rider. Nevertheless, with the intergovernmental agreement for.police services, both the county and the Citywill.respond .to incidents in the Bull Mountain area, depending on who is closest to the incident at the time. The City Attorney has expounded on this issue in the attached findings, 'number 9. Disputes 18.320.020. identified as a ,very park deficient area. More homes will increase. the .deficiency. Also, 99W is already at capacity- additional building will overload that. The identified services are water, sewer, drainage; streets, police, and fire protection. Park deficiencies are not required to -be considered with annexations.. Also, 99W is not at capacity. Tigard's TSP shows that there are no roads at service levels of F(failing). It is projected that by 2015 without constructing certain mitigating facilities and improvements, portions of 99W will reach unacceptable! levels of service. This is not the case now and a model projection cannot be used as a basis.to reject an annexation request that roadway capacity is, not (or someday will not be) available. Was Washington County Sheriffs office notified?. What are their comments? All notices, of annexation are sent to the Washington County Department of Lahd Use. and Transportation. No.comments were received. Bull'Mt.' Community Plan identifies Bull Mountain area as R-6. How was Summit Ridge developed at R-7 prior to annexation? Ordinance 487, adopted by the Washington County Board of Supervisors on September, `9, 1996 applied the most equivalent zoning designation tothe R-6 areas (not all parts of Bull Mountain are identified as R-6 in the plan). The R-7 zone is the most equivalent City designation per the table identified in the ordinance (and repeated in the Development Code section' 18.320) Why was Alberta Rider and Summit Ridge.annexed together? I:ICDADMWERREE1Annexation Responses from Staff.doc. 3 Unlike the other three annexation, requests,, these two annexations were initiated by the City utilizing consent forms. Since they are contiguous areas, the two were combined into one application. They could have' been separated, but this.would have served no purpose, other. than making. additional work (creating another casefile, generating another staff report): How can Arlington Heights #3 annex into our homeowner's association and not have a double majority-vote like the property owners who.already live in. that subdivision? . This is not a function of local government, and the procedure for adding lots into an HOA is an entirely separate process. The' HOA is•a.private `legal entity bound by the covenants that apply to the properties within a subdivision. Whether or pot other lots can be added to an.HOA and the process for doing such should, be spelled out in the bylaws for the association. Scott Miller Why doesn't the City get the message about annexing Bull Mountain?,, Does the City of Tigard have a plan to continue. to annex on Bull Mountain? The City has had a longterm policy that unincorporated areas within the City's area of interest (Bull Mountain, Metzger, etc.) should ultimately be served by the City. This was established with the. adoption of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan in 1983 and acknowledged by Washington"County through a series of intergovernmental agreements. County 2000, Washington County's Strategic Plan, recognizes that cities are the best providers on municipal levels of.urban services. County 2010, an update of County 2000, continues this policy direction.. Based upon the policy direction that has been in placesince: the•adoption of the City's . Comprehensive Plan, Tigard continues its policy of.annexation. Annexation requests are, received throughout the year. In light of City and County'policy, the City Council placed an annexation ballot on the November 2004 election. This ballot asked the voters of the City as well as voters of unincorporated Bull.Mountain whether unincorporated Bull Mountain should be annexed into the City•all at once. While the annexation of unincorporated Bull Mountain was not supported by 88.62% (4,199) of the voters in unincorporated Bull Mountain, a "64.71% (13,294) majority of7i.gard voters supported the annexation. Tigard voters support annexation of unincorporated Bull Mountain. What do any of us on Bull. Mountain get for our tax dollars?. 1ACDADMUERREBAnnexation Responses froni Staff.doc 4 The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, Bull Mountain Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report, 'and the. Bull. Mountain Annexation Study answer that question. Copies are available at the Tigard Public Library.and on the City's web page - www:ci.tigard.or.us. Bull Mountain does not have parks yet qualifies for one. Will the City of Tigard, provide one? Tigard's Parks Master Plan identifies existing and future park 'heeds for.the City's entire` . area,of interest, including unincorporated Bull Mountain. The City is formalizing criteria for park purchases, including areas outside the current. City limits. It should be noted. that the .City, along with Washington County, purchased approximately ''l 2 acres outside the City limits for open.space. How can owners give.consent unless no option? The owners gave consent, The testimony by.the owners was that consent was voluntary. Lisa Hamilton-Treick What is the City taking in? Wants to see current map of the unincorporated area of Bull Mountain including, all.of Bull Mountain and Beef ,Bend. Road that demonstrate where the City's jurisdiction begins and ends. The annexation boundaries are. clearly, shown in the tax assessor's maps which have been available in the application file since date of application. These maps are now available on line at' http://www.0i.tigard.br.us/city hall/city council/docs/packets/050809 Packet. Of A minor adjustment in the proposed annexation area was introduced at the August 9th hearing to.exclude Ms. Rider's'life tenancy'area. This-map was made available at that hearing. The .City's GIS (Geographic Information System) coordinator position has been vacant . since January and, as ,a result,'the present zoning and comprehensive plan map has -not been able to be updated and is out of date. As such, it does not reflect the-recent . annexation of Alpine View, Bella Vista, Arbor Summit, and portions of Summit Ridge. Updates to this map are scheduled.to-occur as soon as a new staff GIS person is hired. 1ACDADMWERREE\Annexation Responses from Staff.doc 5' Ken Henshel Cannot find in any of the IGA's that gives City of Tigard :authority to, force governments on an area as a precondition to approving building or occupancy permits. These annexations are unconstitutional takings as they are coerced. The County and City IGA recognizes thaffigard is the ultimate service provider of,.. urban services in the Bull Mountain Planning Area. As development of those.parcels further intensifies the use and demand for those services, there is a rational nexus to : require the properties to be included within the corporate limits of the City that provides and maintains those services. Since there is no physical "taking" of. property, that is dedication of real property interests for public use that is required by bringing the property into-the-City limits, there is no requirement to determine rough proportionality of the condition requiring the annexation. I:\CDADMUERREMAnnexation Responses from Staff.doc 6 ATTACHMENT 7 untain View Estates Annexaon n ZCA200.4-00004 Mo ton Heights 3 Annex ZCA2005-0000,1 ArlingRidge An 005-00002 Wilson e Annexation ZCA2 20ZCA2 03 Alberta Rider/Summit Ridg ZCA Close of the Public Record on 8/23/05 Testimon Received After August 3Q, 200.5 burin 7-da Written Comm5 00 p.m., pea dune for Additional Written Testimony: ttachment from Stephen Poage, receive a Stephen Poage° received from 1. E-mail from 14ip.mussell ll an and attachment 8130/05 at 4 E.-mail from Julie Russe 8130/05 at4:31 p_m. Cathy WheatleyRE: FW: Annexation Testimony Page 1 From: "Julie"Russell" <jarussell59@comcast.net>. / To: "'Cathy Wheatley<CATHY@ci.tigard.or.us> " Date: 8/30/2005 4:15:31 PM Subject: RE: FW: Annexation Testimony Hi Cathy, I am submitting my response to the Annexation Hearings of the four, properties on Bull Mountain. I oppose the'annexation due to the,map showing errors including portions of Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend, Road. Property owners surrounding the roads, were not notified of this proceeding. Tigard admits the maps could have included errors as the position for updating the maps is vacant and the maps have not been updated for several months. Tigard also admits that it is possible all property owners did not receive this notice regarding this land use decision. The original map did include Alberta Rider's property, and she did not consent,to annex. Alberta Rider was the.only elector in the Alberta Rider School Property, and I believe Tigard is trying to avoid ORS 222.120. Alberta Rider owned all of the property for the Alberta Rider annexation. I don't believe Tigard can legally annex "a portion of the property without, Alberta Rider's consent. Tigard states it has authority pursuant to. ORS 222.125; but I have attached an e-mail from Steven Poage. Steven Poage told the Tigard-Tualatin'School Board that the school would not receive city services if it did not'annex. But this was not the case, all services are provided by districts, and. the requirement to annex was a condition of final,approval. Tigard would not . allow the final inspection,and prevent the school from opening if they did not agree to annex. I don't believe Tigard has legal authority to require this: I don't believe Tigard has legal authority to require consents to annex, due to the fact that Tigard is currently a sub-contractor for Washington County, per the Urban Service Agreement and the, Intergovernmental Agreement. Tigard is currently only providing building inspections and permits. Tigard has publicly stated it is not responsible for long term planning for unincorporated Bull Mountain. Tigard and Washington County'have identified'Bull Mountain as being park deficient. So annexing additional territory only creates more of a deficient'area. The Public Works Directory Dennis Koellermeier presented a map to the Tigard City Council showing the areas in the city and on Bull Mountain that did not have parks within 1/2 mile, and are considered-, . deficient. The Bull Mountain Community Plan identified the area as being park deficient in 1983, and no parks and open space have been developed and set aside for this area, with the exception of Cache Creek, which is a steep ravine on the north side of Bull Mountain that is not usable at this time. Additional annexation only adds to the problem. Highway 99 has been identified as an area of special concern in the Washington County Transportation Plan. ODOT has stated that every intersection on Hwy 99 through Tigard is at or near failure. Washington County Issue Paper 14 regarding a Public Facilities Strategy, states that Cathy Wheatley -RE. FW: Annexation Testimony Page 2 the county recognizes that Hwy 99:is a problem, but currently there are no solutions to fix it. The county staff state the reason they cannot implement a public facilities strategy,,is the'fact that the statute requires a solution within two years. The county does not have a solution for Hwy 99 within two years. Tigard does not require developers to submit traffic impact studies on Hwy 99. So no one is currently looking at the overall impact of traffic on Hwy 99. Additional annexations only add to the already overburdened Hwy 99'. Respectfully, Julie Russell 1. " -----Original Message----- i From: Cathy Wheatley [mailto:CATHY@ci.tigard.or.us] 'Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:14 PM To: jarusse1159@comcast.net Cc: Craig Prosser; Jim Hendryx; garyf@rccb.com Subject: Re: FW:. Annexation Testimony Julie, In accordance with your request, on August 23, 2005 the City Council ti made the following motion: ...to reopen the record and leave it open for• seven days to allow a response to the Annexation Responses from•Staff.and the City Attorney, pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(c). The responses shall. be.. confined to addressing issue`s raised by the new evidence in those documents, if any. ...further move to continue the hearing to the,date certain of September 13, 2005, at 7:30 pm here in the City Council chambers. The written' testimony as described above must be received by staff at City Hall by Tuesday, August 30, 2005, 5 p.m. Cathy "Julie Russell" <jarusse115.9@comc6st.net> 08/23 11:21 AM ' Dear Council•and Cathy, Since I am not able to attend the City Council Meeting tonight, 1. am requesting the record regarding the four annexations be held open for an additional T days to allow time to review the staff report and* the City Attorney response to my testimony. • Thank You, ,,Cathy Wheatley RE.FW' Annexation Testimony Page'3 Julie Russell From: Julie Russell [mailto:jarusse1159@cdmcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:58 AM To: 'cathy@ci.tigard.or.us'; Craig Dirksen; Nick Wilson; Sydney. Sherwood; Tom Woodruff Subject: Annexation Testimony Dear Cathy, Please submit my written testimony regarding the annexation of the four properties on the agenda last week. My testimony is attached., Best Regards, Julie Russell CC: Craig Prosser <CRAIG@ci:tigard.or.us>, Jim Hendryx <JIMH@ci.tigard.or.us>, <garyf@rccb.com> Lathy Wheatley Steven Poage a mail.doc Page 1 Ms. Russell; I am sorry-about the delay•in getting back to you. I began looking into. your questions about which public utility services would not be provided to the school if it were not annexed into the City of Tigard, and this led me-to a.conversation with the district's land use planner, who prepared our Conditional Use Permit„application. He reminded me that condition,#,39 of the CUP approval states that "prior to final building` inspection (occupancy)', the applicant'(school district) shall obtain annexation approval". .Therefore, to open and operate the new school, annexation'was always a.requirement, (and not an option) for the school district. I know. that this may not answer all your questions about utility connections, etc., however those items are probably best answered by those agencies supplying the respective utility service. Best regards, Stephen,Poage, TTSD . I ' ~j _ .i Cathy Wheatley FW: FW Annexation Testimony Page From: "Julie Russell" <jarusseli59@comcast.net> ` To: "'Cathy Wheatley"' <CATHY@ci.tigard:or.us> Date: 8/30/2005 4:32:16 PM Subject:. FW: FW: Annexation Testimony .Hi, Sorry I have 'a couple more items to mention. Tigard states that consents that were provided in connection with a land use hearing needed to be challenged during the land use hearing. I oppose this, how would the average citizen. know that the annexation could not•be " challenged at the annexation hearing? also oppose the Wilson Ridge Annexation and the land use consent•to annex, but when could this be challenged? Since the land use approval has not been complete? Why is the Wilson Ridge.Annexation taking place before the land use approval, and why are the other annexations taking. place after? I also' challenge the issue of Wilson Ridge being contiguous to Tigard on the west .side of the property. No one I know has been aware of any property being annexed to Tigard in this area;-and no maps show this being City of Tigard property. i believe the developers are always going to agree to,annex as.Tigard can I. the development process difficult if they chose not to agree. None of . these developers are the end users or the electors in these territories. So challenge the legal authority of allowing the developerto make a long . term governance decision for the future property,owner. Julie Russell ` -----Original Message----- From: Julie Russell [mailto:jarusse1159@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 4:15 PM To- 'Cathy Wheatley' Cc: 'Craig Prosser'; 'Jim Hendryx'; 'garyf@rccb.com'. Subject: RE: FW: Annexation Testimony. Hi Cathy, I am submitting my response to the Annexation Hearings of the four properties on Bull Mountain. I oppose the annexation due to the map showing errors including portions of Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend Road. Property owners surrounding the roads were not notified of this proceeding. Tigard admits the maps could have included errors as the position for updating the maps is vacant,and the maps have not been updated for several months. Tigard also admits that it is possible all property owners'did not receive this notice regarding. this land use decision. The original map did include Alberta Rider's property, and she did not consent to annex. Alberta Rider was the only elector in •the Alberta Rider v School Property, and I believe Tigard is trying to avoid ORS 222120. Alberta Rider.owned all of the property for the Alberta Rider annexation. don't believe Tigard can legally, annex 6 portion of.the property without Cathy Wheatley FWFW: Annexation Testimony _m _ -Page 2 Alberta Rider's consent. Tigard states it has authority pursuant to ORS 222,125, but I have attached an e-mail from Steven Poage. Steven Poage told the Tigard-Tualatin School Board that the school.would not receive city services if it did not annex. But this was not the case, all services are provided by districts, and the requirement to annex was a condition of final approval. Tigard would not allow the final inspection and prevent the school from opening if, they did not agree to annex. I don't believe,Tigard has legal authority to require this. I don't believe Tigard has legal authority to require consents to annex, due to the fact that Tigard, is currently a sub-contractor for Washington County, per the Urban Service Agreement and the Intergovernmental Agreement. Tigard is currently only providing building inspections and permits. Tigard has publicly stated it is not responsible for long term planning for unincorporated Bull Mountain. ' Tigard and Washington County have identified Bull Mountain as being park deficient. So annexing additional territory only creates more of a deficient area. 'The Public Works Directory Dennis Koellermeier presented a map to the Tigard City Council showing the areas in the city.and on Bull Mountain that did not have parks within 1/2 mile, and are considered deficient. The Bull Mountain Community Plan identified the area as being park deficient in 1,983, and no parks and open space have been developed and set aside for this area, with the exception of Cache Creek, which.is a steep ravine on the north side of Bull Mountain that is not usable at this time. Additional annexation only adds to the problem. Highway 99 has been identified as an area of special concern in the Washington County Transportation Plan. ODOT has stated that every intersection on Hwy 99 through Tigard is at or near failure. Washington County Issue Paper 14 regarding a Public Facilities Strategy, states that the, county recognizes that Hwy 99 is a problem, but currently there are no ` . solutions to fix it. The county staff state the reason they cannot implement a public facilities strategy, is the fact that'the statute requires a solution within two years. The county does riot have a solution for Hwy 99 within two years. Tigard does not require developers to'submit traffic impact studies on Hwy 99. So no one is currently looking at the overall impact of traffic on Hwy 99. Additional annexations only add to the already overburdened Hwy 99.. Respectfully, Julie Russell -----Original Message--'-- ; , From: Cathy Wheatley [mailto:CATHY@ci.tigard.or.us] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005,12:14 PM To; jarusse1159@comcast.net Cc: Craig Prosser; Jim Hendryx; garyf@rccb.com Subject: Re: FW: Annexation Testimony Julie, In accordance with your request, on August 23, 2005 the City Council Cathy WheatleyFW FW Annexation Testimony "Page 3 , made the following motion: ...to reopen the-record and leave it openfor seven.days to-' allow a response to the Annexation Responses from. Staff and the.City x` Attorney, pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(c). The responses shall be confined to addressing issues raised by the new eviderice.in those documents, if any. ...further move to continue the hearing.to the, date : certain of September 13, 2005,78t 7:30 pm.here in the City Council chambers. ; The written testimony as described above. must be received by staff at -City.Hall by Tuesday, August 30, 2005,.5 ,m. Cathy ` "Julie~Russell" <jarussell59.@comcast.net> 08%23 11:21 AM Dear Council and Cathy, Since I am not able'to,attend the City Council Meeting tonight, I am requesting the record,' regarding the four annexations be held•open fo,r an additional 7 days to allow time to review the staff report and the City - Attorney response.to my testimony: .Thank You,. Julie Russell . ' M From: Julie Russell [mailt6:jarussell59@comcast.rnet]., r Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11.58 AM To: 'cathy@ci.tigard.or.us; Craig' Dirksen; Nick Wilson; Sydney Sherwood;, Tom Woodruff Subject: Annexation Testimony Dear Cathy . Please submit my written testimony. regarding the annexation, of the four properties on the agenda last week. My testimony is attached..,s ' I Cathy Wheatley FW: FW Annexation Testimony Page 4 Best Regards, Julie Russell ` CC: -Craig Prosser"'' <CRAIG@ci.tigard.or.us>, "'Jim Hendryx"' <JIMH@ci.tigard.or.us>, <garyf@rccb.com> Cathy Wheatley - Steven Poage e-mail.doc Page 1 Ms. Russell,, ..I am sorry about the delay in getting.back to you.•I began looking into your questions about which public utility-services would not be provided. to the school if it were not annexed into the City of,Tigard, and this, led me to a conversation with the district's land use planner, who prepared our Conditional Use Permit application. He reminded me that ' condition'# 39 of the CUP approval states that "prior to final building inspection (occupancy), the applicant (school district). shall obtain annexation approval". Therefore,, to.open and operate the new school, annexation was always a requirement, (and not an option) for the school district. I know that this may not answer all your questions about utility connections, etc., however those items are probably best answered by those agencies supplying the respective util•ity'service. Best regards, Stephen Poage, TTSD h-e _S(Z tai ri~S W-P1L.Q (tea FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO CO ENTS ~ndinqjs wee At the August 9, 2005, the City Council received testimony from various persons regarding our proposed annexations. The Council allowed all parties until August 16 to submit additional ~tten'information. This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issuesY ised by the testimony and written submissions. The Council received a request to reopen the re ord to allow a response to the post-hearing written submissions and allowed until August 30 f persons to raise new issues relating to the new testimony, as provided by ORS 197.763'(6)(c),and 197.763(7)., This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony. and written submissions. 1.. After the Counc\ llowed additional time to raise new issues in response to new evidence submitted in the post-\\hearing written submissions, the City received two submissions,, both a-mails sent by J ie Russell. Neither of those submissions raises new issues because all issues Prese~ted in her a-mails had been raised previously. Furthermore, neither of the submissionsddresses new evidence submitted after the close of the oral . hearing, but simply'contain "er argument on the same factual and legal issues she and other opponents had raised in her earlier submissions. Therefore, neither are proper submissions under ORS 197.763(6)(c) and 197.763(7). Issues Raised By More Than One Person, HB 2484 '2. Some people testified that House Bill 2484 hich has been enacted-into law) either prevents the City from approving these annexations or demonstrates a" legislative intent that a vote is required in any area to be annexe House Bill 2484 is straightforward: It ` amends ORS 195.215, to make it clear that "annexation plans" under ORS Chapter 195 must be approved both by a majority of voters in the territory to be annexed and by a majority within the City. A. HB 2484 does not apply to the-annexations being considered by the City because HB 2484 applies 'only to annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195, and the annexations before the City do not involve annexation plans or ORS Chapter .195. - They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222, in particular ORS 222.125. HB 2484, even if it were effective, would not apply to or affect these annexations. B. HB 2484 requires a separate vote in the area to be annexed for annexation plan annexations. However, requiring a vote in the area to be an exed would be a meaningless and futile act for areas in which there are no reg~ tered voters. There . are no registered voters in the area to be annexed in Mountain Xiew'Estates annexation (ZCA2004=00003) or in the Alberta Rider/Summit R ge annexation area (ZCA2005-00003). All of the-registered voters in the Arlingtb Heights 3 (ZCA20005-00001) and Wilson Ridge (ZCA 2005-00002) annexal have consented to annexation. CITY' COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Pagel HB 2722 3... HB 2722 (which has been enacted into law) withdraws the right of cities to veto formation of new cities within three miles of their borders. Some opponents of annexation have-argued that the intent of this bill is that the wishes of citizens in the affected areas are respected. ' A. HB_ 2722 does not apply to annexations. B. The affected areas are the areas to be annexed. Two types,of persons have interests in the affected areas those who own, property and those who reside there. All owners of all properties to be annexed, and all voters in areas to be annexed have consented to the'annexation..No owner or. resident in the areas to be annexed has indicated that they do not wish annexation. , SB 877 4. SB 877 (which has been enacted into law) has three'major effects. One is that it limits the ability of the City. of Beaverton to annex "islands" of-territory surrounded by' that City. The second effect is that it requires a majority'vote in the territory to be annexed by means of an annexation- plan under ORS Chapter 195. The third effect is to prohibit the annexation of certain types of industrial property without the consent of the owner. A. The provisions affecting only the. City of Beaverton do not apply to the City of Tigard. - B. None of the.proposed annexations are "island" annexations, although an "island" is created by the Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge annexation. C. The annexations are not annexation plan annexations and are not subject to ORS Chapter 195.. f D. The annexations are not of industrial land and are not the type of land that cannot be annexed without the consent of the owner. The City has the consent of all owners of all land being annexed. Voluntary or Coerced Consents 5. Some persons argued that the consents are not valid because they were coerced. A. None of the people who provided consents stated they were coerced. Those who testified that the consents were coerced did not specify which persons were coerced.. Several persons. representing property owners (Tom Weber, John Marquart, Sean. Foushee, and Al: Jeck) testified orally and/or in writing that consents were voluntary and not coerced. The. City. Council finds that there is no evidence that any specific individual was coerced into consenting to annexation. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 2 . If any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is likely that the person would have appeared at the hearing. The Council finds the testimony of Tom Weber, John Marquart, Sean Foushee and Al Jeck to be more persuasive than the evidence of those claiming coercion because the named individuals were in a position to know whether the consents were voluntary or coerced and those who 'claimed that the consents were coerced did not have personal knowledge regarding the consents. The Council concludes that'none of.' the consents were coerced. B. ORS 222.115 specifically authorizes contracts between a city and a landowner relating to the extraterritorial provision of service in which the landowner consents to annexation. The fact that the City requires •a consent to annexation in return for a contract for the, extraterritorial provision of service is explicitly . authorized by statute and does not constitute coercion. The City provides . planning and building inspection services extraterritorially and may require consents to annexation in order to provide those services. C. ORS 222.175 recognizes that cities may solicit consents to annexation. The fact that a City seeks•,consents does not mean that they were coerced and does not invalidate the consents. Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use Proceeding 6. Some opponents argued-that some of the consents were required in connection with land use proceedings, and the City cannot require consents to annexation in order to process a land use application or.as a condition of a land use approval. A. For consents that were, provided in connection with a land use approval, the time to challengeIhe City's. authority to impose the consents was during the land use process. In each case, the land use process has been completed and the appeal period has passed. The requirement to provide a consent to annexation can no longer be challenged. B. None of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use proceedings have in any way challenged the consents or the requirement to provide the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified that they affirmatively desire that their properties be annexed to the City of Tigard. . General Concern For The Bull Mountain Area 7: Some opponents stated concerns related to the Bull Mountain area in general and to their property in unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain. Some of :them argue that the 'prop'osed annexations should not proceed because of the negative vote when the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan was, presented to the voters in the area to be annexed. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 3 A. The rights and interests. of 'the. owners and registered voters in the areas proposed for annexation are recognized by statute. The statutes do not create a legally protected interest for other persons. B.; These annexations are different from the annexation plan presented to the voters. These annexations are property-specific annexations under ORS Chapter 222. The City and the annexation applicants are-not requesting approval of an annexation plan. The rejection of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195 does not prevent later annexation of specific territory under.a different annexation .statute. "Double Majorily" 8. Some opponents of the annexation argued that a "double majority" vote (a separately tabulated vote in the City and in the area to be annexed). is required. A. A "double majority" vote is or will be required for annexation plans under ORS Chapter. 195. However; for annexations under ORS Chapter 222, votes in. the City are not required unless required by City charter or ordinance, and votes in the area to be annexed are not required if certain criteria are met. A vote in the area to be annexed is not required if all of the owners of all of the land and a majority of the electors in the area to be,-.annexed, if any, consent to the annexation." ORS 222.125.. The City Charter and Code do not require a vote within the City. B. As to each of the annexations, the City has received the consents of all of the owners of all of the land. The City has also received the consents of all of the registered voters in each area.that has registered voters. These annexations are not annexation-pIan annexations under ORS 195, so the double majority requirement does not apply. The City. is not required to hold a vote in any of the territories to be annexed, either because there are no.electors in the areas to be annexed or because the City has the consent of a majority of the electors in those areas. "Islands" Of Unincorporated Areas Surrounded By The City ; 9. Some opponents argued that these annexations create islands of unincorporated areas .surrounded by the City.. They also note that the City may later annex those islands without consent of owners or electors: A. There is no legal prohibition on the creation of islands. The City must consider annexation applications that create islands under applicable, standards. While the Council must consider whether the borders created by an annexation are so irregular as to potentially cause .problems 'with the provision of police services, . . the police department accepts these boundaries as being acceptable and not causing confusion for the provision of police services. The police department has provided written statements that they can provide services. The Council finds that CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS 7 ANNEXATIONS Page 4 the boundaries are riot irregular to the extent they create confusion in the provision of police services. . B. The City does have the authority to annex islands, but is aware that the statutory authority to annex islands may be withdrawn, as,it has been withdrawn from one other city and from•certain types of land. The possibility, of a future annexation proceeding is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding whether to approve these annexations. Regular Boundaries 10.. Several persons commented that the annexations will not result in a regular boundary. A. The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1.2, which provides: Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on findings with respect to the following: . a. The annexation eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island of unincorporated territory; or b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundarythat makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the city; C.. The police department has commented on the annexation; d. The -land is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is contiguous to -the City boundary; e., The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(a)._ B. Policy 10. 1.2 is complied with if either (1) subsection a or (2) subsections b through e are met. ' These annexations comply with subsections b through e. 'The annexation boundary-will not make it difficult for the police-in emergency situations to determine whether the parcel is within or without the City. The police department has commented on the annexation and stated that it is capable of providing service. All areas proposed for annexation are within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and. are contiguous to the City. The services listed in 10:1.1(a) (water,-sewer, drainage, streets, police and fire protection) can-be provided to the areas to be annexed - the City and other responsible service providers have capacity to provide service to the areas to be annexed.. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 5 Individual. Comments = Testimony at Hearing Les and Ellen Godowski 11. The Godowskis argued that the' annexations will also prevent certain areas from 'creating their own cities or annexing to King City: A. The City has no- obligation, to refrain from annexing territory based on the possibility that some other city maybe incorporated in the area at some point in the future. ` B. All applicable plans and intergoverninental'agreements that address urbanization or the provision of urban services designate Tigard as the City that will annex and/or provide urban services to the areas being annexed. Charles Radler 12. Charles Radley argued that the annexations would violate Dolan v. City of Tigard and that there is no "essential nexus." Mr. Radley also provided a written document: A. Dolan v. City of Tigard, applies only to cases iri which the,City exacts property from a property owner at the time ofa land use approval. Dolan does not apply to annexations. B. To the.extent the Mr..Radley is arguing that the City.could not require the property owners to consent to annexation as a condition of land use approval, that challenge is too late. The land,use approvals.are final and cannot be collaterally challenged. Furthermore, Mr. Radley was not the applicant or a landowner in any of the land use cases and lacks standing to challenge conditions that have been accepted by the applicants. C. The"essential nexus" requirement is imposed on exactions by the Nollan v., California Coastal Commission case. Like Dolan, the case applies only to exactions at the time of land use approvals, not to annexations. To the extent that Mn Radley is challenging conditions of approval in the previous land use cases,' that challenge is too late, and Mr. Radley lacks standing to make the challenge. D. The. document that Mr. Radley provided is an excerpt discussing the requirement, under Rhode Island law, that a building official must issue a building permit that meets the requirements of the building code. Rhode Island law concerning building officials is not relevant to any issue regarding these annexations. If Mr. ' Radley is attempting to argue that the City cannot require a consent to annexation; any requirement regarding consents to annexations by the City are imposed in the context of a land use-proceeding. The City has more 'authority and more discretion in land ''Use proceedings than in issuing building permits. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 6 Julie Russell 13.' In addition to issues raised by others, Ms. Russell;claimed that the map included with the notice of annexation was. inaccurate as to.which areas are included within the City limits and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell argued that the City's process violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1. and CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell, stated dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning. . A. The maps provided with the notice were accurate. They'showed the location of the.properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by a shaded yellow area. There is no 'requirement to provide a map with the notice of the annexation hearing. Even if there was some inaccuracy, the'maps provided sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed and their relationship to the City: The City provided notice in compliance with all applicable requirements. In the event that some person may have, failed to receive . notice, failure of a person to receive notice does not invalidate the notice, which was properly provided: B. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2. 1.1 provides: "The City shall' maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is not an approval standard or criterion for an annexation application. The City's land use regulations have been acknowledged, and those regulations provide the process, including citizen involvement, for considering land use applications. That process includes notice and a hearing, and the City provided notice and a hearing, as required by the CDC.'. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies. implemented by the regulations.. 'Citizens, including Ms. Russell, have had the opportunity to be involved in process. The process of necessity works differently in a quasi-judicial land use process than in a legislative process. C. CDC 18.320.020 provides: 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards A. Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390 using standards of approval contained in Subsection B2 below. B. Approval Criteria. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to annex property.to the City shall be based on the following, criteria:.. L. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS,— ANNEXATIONS . Page 7 annexation area; and 2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations.. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive. plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall. occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations,', the. City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City designations which are the most similar. A zone change is, required if the applicant requests a.comprehensive plan map and/or zoning.map designation.other than the existing designations.. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after. the annexation has been approved. D:. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations to City designations which are most similar. The City used a Type TV approval process.. The` City has capacity to provide all required services to the area to be annexed, and the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, including those in Chapter 10, have been satisfied. The properties being annexed already have City comprehensive plan and zoning designations, that. have been adopted and imposed by the County. Ms. Russell specifically argued that the City lacks parks capacity in the area... However, the City has sufficient parks capacity throughout the City to provide service to its residents, including residents in the areas being annexed. The services listed in . the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer,, storm sewer,. streets, police and fire protection, are the essential services that must be available, and those services will be available to the newly annexed areas. Ms. Russell questioned the.adequacy of the street system. The City Council finds.that the street. system is adequate to provide service and will remain adequate. If the properties are not annexed, they could still be developed consistent with the County, zoning, which is the same as City zoning, so whether the properties'are annexed or not'does not affect the . impact on the street system. . D. The areas to be-annexed all have existing City zones that were established consistent with Table. 320.1. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Community Development Code provisions. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 8 Scott Miller " . 14.' In addition to issues addressed in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these findings, Mr. Miller stated a concern with an increase in taxes. Mr. Miller also argued that the consents received by the City are not consents. 4 A. Mr. Miller does not own property being annexed. His property is outside-the area proposed for annexation. His taxes will not increase as a'result of the annexation. The property owners in the area to be annexed have consented to the annexation. Whether taxes may, increase is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding an. annexation. ; B. For each of the annexations, the City has either the written consent,of the property owners or a petition from 'the property owners to initiate the annexation. All are valid consents. Lisa Hamilton Treick 15. In addition to issues address in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these findings, Ms. Hamilton•Treick argued that Measure 37 gives. property owners rights that are violated by these annexations. A. Ms. Hamilton Treick does not own property that will be annexed by these. annexations. All owners of property being annexed have consented to these annexations. The property owners or their representatives who testified expressly stated that they'voluntarily consent to the annexations. One of them, Tom Weber, stated that he actively sought annexation to Tigard because of the value it brings to his property. Measure 37 is'not an applicable standard. or criterion for annexation. 16.. Ms. Hamilton Treick also argued that the City has no authority to condition land use approvals or acceptance, of land use applications on a consent to annexation., A. This is a challenge to final land use decisions that were not been appealed within the time allowed by statute.. Those decisions cannot be collaterally attacked. B. The various agreements with the County and other urban service providers, including the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement and Tigard Urban Service Agreement, anticipate that the City will provide planning services and . will ultimately annex Tigard's urban service area. Requiring annexation is not inconsistent with those agreements. Urban Service Agreement Section I.D provides that the City shall endeavor to annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed'for annexation. Requiring annexation consents'effectuates this provision of the Urban Service Agreement. The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement-gives Tigard all land use decision-making authority CITY COUNCIL' FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS . Page 9 . over the area to be annexed. Land use authority includes the authority to impose conditions. The City has the authority to impose a condition of approval requiring consent to annexation when it receives a land use application for a property outside the City. Individual Comments - Post-Hearing Written Submissions Julie Russell " .17. Ms. Russell again discussed general opposition to annexation in the Bull'. Mountain area, HB 2484;-SB 887, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.l.Land 10.1.2, and CDC 18.320.020. The above findings address those. arguments. 18. Ms. Russell also argues that the zoning is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull Mountain Community Plan.. The areas have all been rezoned by the County and the zoning being applied is the zoning required by CDC 18.320. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the written testimony of John Marquart, there is little or no practical difference between Washington County R-6 and Tigard R-7 zoning, as applied. 19. Ms. Russell argues that not everyone who was entitled-to receive notice actually received notice. The City provided notice as required by applicable regulations. While, it is possible that some, persons did not receive notice, the City complies with the notice requirements. 20. Ms. Russell complains about possible effects on other service providers. The City has not received any negative comments from other service providers. 'All service providers in the area have agreed that the area being annexed will be annexed to Tigard. Services will be provided as agreed to in the Urban Services Agreements entered into by the City and other service providers. 21. Ms. Russell argues thafthe annexation will interfere with the orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services.. However, her argument appears to be that services can be provided without annexation. That does not mean that annexation will disrupt or interfere with service provision. The agreements between the service providers will ensure orderly and economic provision of services. 22. Ms.. Russell argues that the Alberta Rider School'property should not be annexed. None of her arguments relate to any applicable standard orcriterion. 23. Ms. Russell` opposes the Summit Ridge annexation as non-contiguous. The Summit Ridge area being annexed.will be contiguous with the City on annexation. ' 24. Ms.' Russell objects to the Annexation of Arlington Heights 3 on the grounds that the annexation will cause annexation to a homeowners association. That argument does not <related to any applicable standard or criterion: Participation in a-homeowner's association is "a matter of contract between the parties and, unrelated to a City's authority CITY COUNCIL-FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS . Page 10. to annex. Ms Russell also argues that the'.City carinot'annex only part of a subdivision. No applicable standard or criterion. prohibits annexation of part of a subdivision. Furthermore, Arlington Heights 3 is a separate subdivision from Arlington Heights I and 2. LaVelle. and Marie Day 25. The Days object to the annexation on the grounds that the annexation may interfere with efforts to annex to King City or to create 'a new,city.. This argument does not relate. to any applicable criterion or standard.. None of the Days' other-arguments are based on 'applicable standards or criteri'a:.'.. Jackie and Gary Kisling , 26. The Kislings raise issues related to HB 24,84 and HB 2722. Those bills are addressed in the above findings. Henry Kane 27. Mr..Kane'makes arguments against island annexations.. None. of the annexations are,... island annexations. Lisa Hamilton-Treick and Tom.Treick 28. Ms. Hamilton-Treick, and Mr. Treick oppose the.process -in which the hearings on four- . annexations were combined as causing hardship on those who wish to appeal.",Everr if the hearings had not been combined; .the hearings could have been,. and most likely would have been held at the same meeting. Therefore, the appeals would have all been due at the-same time. 'Combining the'hearings allowed,people to state their objections,a single time so as to avoid multiple repeated testimony. ` All persons were given a full . opportunity to address any issues related to any of the four annexations. 29. They also object.to the boundaries as being irregular and question the voluntariness. of the consents. These issues are addressed above. 30. They also oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to Tigard's TIF accounts. That is not a relevant issue and does not relate.to any applicable standard or criterion. Philip E. Decker' 31. , Mr. Decker opposes the aninexations•as not being contiguous. No property being annexed will be separated from the City by any intervening unincorporated territory . The annexations are of contiguous-property. . ' 32: Mr. Decker argues that ORS.222.'115.allows annexation contracts only for contiguous . parcels. ORS222.115 does not require that property be contiguous at the time an ' CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 11 t , annexation contract *is signed. One purpose of ORS 222.is to allow 'properties that are riot., contiguous to consent to annexation so that they can'receive urban services immediately and be annexed later when intervening properties annex.. The contiguity requirement applies only when, the annexation becomes effective. 33. Mr. Decker argues that the areas being anneked'are irregularly 'shaped.-The shape of the'. area being annexed is not an issue. 34. Mr. Decker argues .'that previous annexations were improper. The previous-annexations are final and have not been challenged. They. cannot be collaterally attacked at this time.. Comments In Support . .35. After the hearing, the City received-. several written comments in support of the proposed -annexations, including statements.from Sean Foushee, on behalf of the applicants for the mountain-View Estates, from John Marquart.on'behalf'of the applicant for the Wilson Ridge annexation, and from Tom Weber, on behalf of the owners of the Arlington Heights 3 property, all of whom stated that the annexation,applications.were voluntary. Mr. Marquart and Mr. Weber addressed other issues, strongly supporting the annexations of their respective areas'. ° . G:\muni\Tig2!rd\revisedarinexationfmdings090105, doc % i CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS ' Page 12 : i Ison.cl e~ FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS A\the August 9, 2005, the City Council received testimony from various persons regarding N ur proposed annexations. "The Council allowed all parties until August 16 to submit additional 'tten information. 'This document sets out the-City's-findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. The Council received a request to reopen the record to allow a response to the post-hearing written submissions and allowed until August 30`for persons to raise new issues relating to the new testimony, as provided by ORS 197.763(6)(c) and 197.763(7). This document-sets out-the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. 1. After the Council allowed additional time to raise new issues in response to•-new evidence submitted in the post-hearing written submissions, the City received two submissions, both' e-mails, sent by Julie Russell. Neither of those submissions raises new issues because all issue presented iri her a-mails had'been raised previously. Furthermore, neither of the sub issions addresses new evidence. submitted after the close of the oral hearing, but simply Tntain further argument'on the same factual and legal issues she and other opponents had r ised in her earlier'submissions. Therefore, neither are. proper submissions under OR 197.763(6)(c)'and 197.763(7). Issues Raised B More Than One Person HB 2484 2. Some,people testified that Hou e Bill 2484 (which has been enacted into law) either prevents the. City from •approvingOese annexations'or demonstrates a- legislative intent that a vote is required in any area to be annexed. House Bill 2484 is straightforward. It amends ORS 195:215; to make it clear that "aiinexation plans" under ORS Chapter 195 must be approved both by a majorityXof voters, in the territory -to be annexed and by a majority within'the City. A. HB 2484 does not apply to the annexations being considered by the City because HB 2484 applies only to annexati plans under ORS Chapter 195, and the', annexations before the City. do not involve annexation plans or ORS Chapter 195. r They are annexations under ORS Cha ter 222, in particular ORS 222.125. HB 2484, even if it were effective, would n t apply to or affect these annexations. B. HB 2484 requires a separate vote in the a a to be annexed for annexation plan annexations.' However, requiring a vote in e area to be annexed would be a meaningless and futile act for areas in which there are no registered voters. , There are no registered voters 'in the area to be anne ed in Mountain View'Estates annexation (ZCA2004-00003) or in the Albert Rider/Summit Ridge annexation area (ZCA2005-00003):. All of the registered v ters in the Arlington Heights 3 (ZCA20005-00001) and Wilson Ridge (ZCA 20 -00002) annexation have consented to annexation. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS f Page 1 HB 2722 3. HB 2722 (which has been enacted into law) withdraws the right of cities to veto formation of new cities within three miles of their borders. Some opponents of . annexation have argued that the intent of_this bill is that the wishes of citizens in the affected areas are respected. , A. HB 2722 does not apply to,annexatioins. B. The affected: areas are the areas to be annexed. Two types of persons have interests in the affected areas those who own property and those who reside. there. All owners of all properties to be annexed, and all voters in areas to be annexed have consented to the annexation. No owner or. resident in the areas to be'annexed has indicated, that they do not wish annexation. SB 877' 4. SB 877 (which has been enacted into law) has three major effects. One is that it limits the ability *of the City of Beaverton to. annex "islands"' of territory surrounded by that City. The second effect'is that it requires,a majority vote in the territory to be annexed.by means of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter .195. The third effect is to prohibit the annexation of certain types of industrial-property without the consent of the owner. A. The provisions affecting only the. City of Beaverton do not' apply to the City of . Tigard. B. None of the proposed annexations are "island" annexations, although an "island" is created by the Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge annexation. ` C. The annexations are not,annexation plan annexations and are not subject to ORS Chapter 195. D. The annexations are not of industrial land and are not the type of land that cannot be annexed without the consent of the owner. The City has the consent of all . owners of all land being annexed: Voluntary or Coerced Consents 5. Some persons:argued that the consents are not valid because they were coerced. 'A.: None of the people who provided consents stated they were coerced. Those who testified that the consents were coerced did not specify which persons were coerced. Several persons representing•property owners (Tom Weber, John Marquart; Sean Foushee, and Al Jeck) testified orally. and/or in writing that consents were voluntary,and not coerced. The City Council finds that there is no evidence that any specific individual was coerced into consenting to annexation. . -CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 2 If any person who provided consents believed that.the consents were coerced, it is likely that the person would have appeared at the hearing. The Council finds the . testimony of Tom Weber, John Marquart; Sean Foushee and Al Jeck to.be. more persuasive than the evidence of those claiming coercion because the named individuals were in a position to know whether the consents were voluntary or coerced and those who claimed that the consents.were coerced did not-have personal knowledge regarding the consents. The Council concludes that none of the consents were,coerced. B. ORS 222.11,5 specifically authorizes contracts-between a city and .a landowner relating to the extraterritorial provision of service in which the landowner consents to annexation. The fact that the City. requires a consent to annexation in return for a contract for the extraterritorial provision of service•is explicitly authorized by statute and does not -constitute coercion. The City provides planning and building inspection services extraterritorially and may require consents to annexation in order to provide those. services. C. ORS 222.175 recognizes that cities may solicit consents to annexation. The fact that a City seeks consents does not mean that they were coerced and does riot invalidate the consents. Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use Proceeding 6. Some opponents argued that some of the consents were required in..connection with land use proceedings, and the City cannot require consents to annexation in order to, process a land use application or as a condition of a land use approval. A. For consents that'were provided in connection with a land use approval, the time to challenge the City's authority.to impose the consents was during the land use process. In each case, the land use process has been.completed and the appeal period has passed. The requirement to provide a consent to annexation can no longer be challenged. B. None of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use proceedings -have in any way challenged the consents or the requirement to - provide the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified that they affirmatively desire that their properties be annexed to the City. of Tigard. General Concern For The Bull Mountain Area 7. Some opponents stated concerns related.to the Bull Mountain area in general and to their property in unincorporated areas of Bu11.1V1ountain. =Some of them argue that the proposed annexations should not proceed because of the negative vote when the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan was presented to the voters in the area to be annexed. CITY COUNCIL'FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 3 A. The rights and interests of the owners and registered voters in the areas proposed for annexation are recognized by statute.. The statutes do not create a legally protected interest for other persons. B. These annexations are different from the annexation plan presented to the voters. These annexations are property-specific annexations under ORS Chapter 222. The City and the annexation. applicants are not requesting approval of an annexation plan. The rejection of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195 does not prevent later annexation of specific territory under a different annexation statute. - 4 "Double Majority Vote 8. Some opponents of the annexation argued that a "double majority" vote (a separately, tabulated vote in.the City and.in the area to be annexed) is required. A. A "double majority" vote is or will be required for annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195. However, for annexations under ORS Chapter 222, votes in the City are not required unless required by City charter or ordinance, and votes in the area to be annexed are not required if certain criteria are met: A vote in the area. to be annexed is.not required if all of the owners of all of the land and a majority of the electors in the area to be annexed, if any, consent to the annexation. ORS 222.125.. The City Charter and Code do not require a vote within the City. B. As to each of the annexations, the City has received the consents of all of the owners of all of the land. The City has also received the consents of all of 'the registered voters in each area that has registered voters. These annexations are not annexation plan annexations'under ORS 195, so the double majority requirement does not apply. The City is not required to hold a vote in any of the territories to be annexed, either because there are rio electors in the areas to be annexed or because the'City has the consent of a majority of the electors in those areas. "Islands" Of Unincorporated Areas Surrounded By The City 9. Some opponents, argued that these annexations create islands of unincorporated areas surrounded-by the City. They also note that the City, may later annex those islands without consent of owners or electors. A. There is no legal prohibition on the creation,of islands. The City must.consider annexation applications that create islands under applicable standards. While the Council must consider whether the borders created by an annexation are so irregular as to potentially cause problems with the provision of police services,- the police. department accepts-these boundaries as being acceptable and not. causing confusion for the provision of police services. The police department, has provided written statements that they can provide services. The Council finds that CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 4 . the boundaries are not irregular to the extent they create confusion in the provision of police services. B. The City does have the.authority to annex islands, but is aware that the statutory authority to annex-islands may, be withdrawn, as it has been withdrawn from one other city and from certain types of land. The possibility of a future annexation proceeding is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding whether to approve these annexations.. Regular Boundaries 10. • Several persons commented that the annexations will not result in~a regular boundary. A. The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1.2, which provides: Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on findings with respect to the following: a. The annexation eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island of unincorporated territory; or, b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that, makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City; c.. The police department has commented on the annexation; d. The land is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area.. and is contiguous to the City boundary; e. The annexation can.be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(a), B. Policy 10. 1.2 is complied with if either (1) subsection a or (2) subsections b ' through e are met. These annexations comply with subsections b through e. The annexation boundary will not make it difficult for the police in emergency situations to determine whether the parcel is within or without the City. The police department has commented on the annexation and stated that it is capable of providing service. All areas proposed for annexation'are within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and. are contiguous to the City. The services listed in 10.1.1(a) (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police and fire protection) can be provided to the areas to be annexed - the City and other responsible service providers have capacity to provide service to. the areas to be annexed. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 5 Individual Comments Testimony'at Hearing Les and Ellen Godowski 11. The Godowskis argued that the' annexations will also prevent certain areas from creating their own cities or annexing to King City. A. The City has no obligation to.refrain from.annexing territory based on the possibility that some bother city may be incorporated in the area at some point in the future. B. All applicable plans' and intergovernmental agreements that address urbanization or the provision of urban services designate Tigard as the City that will annex and/or provide urban services to the "areas being annexed. . Charles Radley 12. Charles Radley argued that the annexations would violate Dolan v. Chy9f,Tigard and that there is no "essential nexus." Mr. Radley also .provided a written document. . . A. Dolan v. City of-Tigard applies only to cases in which the City exacts property from a property owner at the time of a land use approval. Dolan does not apply to _ annexations., B. To the extent the Mr. Radley is arguing that the City could not require the . property owners to consent to annexation as a condition of land use approval, that challenge is too late. The land use approvals: are final and cannot be collaterally . challenged. Furthermore, Mr. Radley was not the applicant or a landowner in any of the land use cases and lacks standing to challenge conditions that have been accepted by the applicants. C. The "essential nexus" requirement is imposed on exactions by the Nollan v. California Coastal Commission case. Like Dolan, the case applies only to exactions at the time of land use approvals, not'to annexations. To=the extent that Mr. Radley is challenging conditions of.approval in the previous land use cases, that challenge is too late, and Mr. Radley lacks standing to make the challenge. D. The. document"that Mr. Radley. provided is an excerpt discussing the requirement, under Rhode Island law, that a building official must issue a building permit that meets the requirements of the building code. Rhode Island law concerning ..building officials is not relevant.to any issue regarding, these annexations. If Mr. Radley-is attempting to argue that the City cannot require a consent to annexation, any requirement regarding consents. to annexations by the City are imposed in the context of a land use proceeding.. The City has more authority and more discretion in land use proceedings than in issuing building permits. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 6 Julie Russell ` 13. In addition to issues raised by others, Ms. Russell claimed that the map included with the notice of annexation was. inaccurate as to.which areas are included within the City limits and which areas are outside the City limits.. Ms. Russell,argued that the City's process violated Comprehensive. Plan Policies 2.1.1. and CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell stated dissatisfaction with the-proposed zoning: A. The maps provided with the notice were accurate. They showed the location of the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by a shaded yellow area. There is no requirement to provide a map with the notice of the. annexation hearing. Even if there was some inaccuracy, the maps provided sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed' and their relationship to the City. The City provided notice in compliance with all applicable requirements. In the event.that some person may have failed to receive notice, failure of a.person to receive notice does not invalidate the notice, which was properly provided. B. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1:1 provides: "The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is not an approval standard or criterion for an annexation application. The City's, land use regulations have been acknowledged, and those regulations provide the process, including citizen involvement, for considering. land use applications.. That, process includes notice and a hearing, and the City provided notice and a hearing, as required by the CDC. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by the regulations. Citizens, including Ms. Russell, have had the opportunity to be involved in process. The process of necessityworks differently in a quasi-judicial land use process-than in a legislative process. C. CDC 18.320.020 provides: 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards A, Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a. Type IV procedure; as governed by Chapter, 18.390 using standards of.approvat contained in Subsection. B2 below. B.. Approval Criteria. The decision to' approve, approve with modification, or, deny an application to annex property to the City shall ,be based on the, following criteria: 1. All- services and -facilities are available to the area and have ' sufficient capacity to 'provide service. for the'proposed CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS . Page 7 annexation area; and 2.. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. f C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements'the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur 'automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to, the City designations which are the most similar. A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. D. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations to City designations which are most similar... , The City used a Type IV approval process.. The City has capacity to provide all required services to the area to be' annexed, and the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, including those in Chapter<10, have been satisfied. The properties being annexed already have City comprehensive, plan and zoning designations, that have been adopted and imposed by the County. Ms. Russell specifically argued that the City lacks. parks capacity in the area. However, the City has sufficient parks capacity throughout the City.to provide service to its residents; ineludingresidents in the areas being annexed. The services listed in the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer, storm sewer,. streets, police and fire protection, are the essential. services that must be available, and those services will be available to the newly annexed areas. Ms. Russell questioned the adequacy, of the street system. The City Council finds that the street system is adequate to provide service and will remain adequate. If the properties are not annexed, they could still be developed consistent with the County zoning, which is the same as City zoning, so whether the properties are annexed or not does not affect the impact on the street system. D. The areas to be annexed'all have existing City zones that were established consistent with Table 320.1. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Community Development. Code provisions. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS . Page ,8 Scott Miller 14. In addition to issues addressed in.the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these'findings, Mr. Miller stated a concern' with an'increase in'taxes. Mr. Millenalso argued that the consents received by the City are not consents. A. Mr. Miller does not own property being annexed. His property is outside the area proposed for. annexation. His taxes will not increase as a ,result of the annexation. The property owners in-the area to be.annexed have•consented to the annexation. Whether taxes may' increase is not an applicable standard,or criterion. in deciding an annexation. " B. For each of the annexations, the City has'either the written consent of the property owners or a petition from the property owners to initiate the annexation. All are valid consents. Lisa'Hamilton Treick 15.'' -In addition to issues'address in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person". section.of these findings, Ms.' Hamilton Treick argued that Measure 37 gives property owners rights that are violated by these annexations. ' A. Ms. Hamilton Treick does not own property that will be annexed by these.. annexations. All owners of property being, annexed have corisented to these annexations. The property'owners or their, representatives who.testified expressly stated thatthey volimiarily'consent:to the annexations. One of them,'Torn Weber, stated that he actively sou&,annexation to Tigard because of the value it brings to his property. Measure 37 is not"an applicable standard or criterion for . annexation. 16. Ms. Hamilton Treick also argued that the City lids no authority to'condition land use ' approvals or acceptance of land use applications `on aconsent to annexation. . A. = This is a challenge, to final land use decisions thatwere'not been appealed within the time allowed by statute. Those decisions cannot be collaterally attacked. . B. The various agreements with the County and other urban service providers, including the Urban, Services Intergovernmental Agreement and Tigard Urban. Service Agreement, anticipate that the City will provide planning services and will ultimately annex Tigard's urban service area. Requiring annexation is not inconsistent with those agreements. Urban Service Agreement Section I.D y • provides,that,the City shall endeavor to annex certain areas, including all areas, currently proposed for annexation. Requiring annexation consents effectuates this provision of the Urban Service Agreement; The Urban Services'. . Intergovernmental Agreement gives Tigard all land use decision-making authority CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS::-- ANNEXATIONS Page 9 3 over the area to be annexed. Land use authority includes the authority to impose . conditions. The City has the authority to impose a condition of approval requiring consent to annexation when it receives a land use application,for a property outside the City. t Individual Comments-Post-Hearing Written Submissions Julie Russell 1-7. Ms. Russell again discussed general opposition to annexation in., the Bull Mountain area, HB 2484, SB887, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2a.Land.10.1.2, and CDC 18.320.020. The above findings address those arguments: .18. Ms. Russell also argues that the.zoning is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull Mountain Community Plan., The areas have, all been, rezoned by the County and the zoning being applied is the zoning required by.CDC 18320. Furthermore; as demonstrated in the written testimony of John Marquart, there is little or no practical difference between Washington County R-6 and Tigard R-7: zoning, as_applied. ..19. Ms. Russell argues, that not everyone who was entitled to receive notice actually received notice. The City provided notice as required by-applicable regulations. While it is possible that some persons did not receive notice, the City complies with, the notice requirements. , 20. ` Ms. Russell complains about possible' effects on other' service `providers. The City has not received any negative comments from other service providers. All service providers in the area have agreed that the.area being :annexed-will be annexed to Tigard. " Services will be provided as agreed.to,in the Urban..Services Agreements entered into .by',the City and other service providers. 2.1. Ms; Russell argues that the annexation will interfere with the orderly and economic -provision of public facilities and services. However','her argument appears to be that services can, be providedwithout annexation. That does not mean that annexation will disrupt or interfere with service provision. The agreements between the service providers will ensure orderly' and economic provision of services: 22: Ms. Russell argues that the Alberta Rider School property should not be annexed. None . of her arguments relate to any applicable standard or-criterion. 23. 'Ms. Russell opposes the Summit Ridge annexation as non-contiguous. The Summit Ridge area being annexed.will be contiguous`with'the City on annexation. 24: Ms. Russell, objects to the Annexation of Arlington Heights 3 on the grounds that the annexation will cause annexation to a homeowners association. That argument does not related to any applicable standard or :criterion. Participation in a homeowner's association is a matter of contract between the parties and unrelated to a• City's authority CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS. `ANNEXATIONS . Page 10 to annex. Ms Russell also argues that the City' cannot annex only, part of a subdivision. . No applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation of part of,a.subdivision. . Furthermore,.. Arlington Heights 3 is a separate subdivision from Arlington Heights 1 -and 2. LaVelle and Marie Day 25. The Days object to the.annexation on the-grounds that-the annexation may interfere with, t efforts to annex to King' City or to created new city. This argument does not relate to any applicable criterion or standard. ' . None 'of the Days' other arguments are based on applicable standards or criteria. , Jackie and Gary Kislin 26. The Kislings raise issues related to BB 2484 and.HB 2722. Those bills are addressed in . the above findings. Hem 27. Mr. Kane makes arguments against island annexations. None of the annexations are.j island annexations. Lisa Hamilton'Treick and Tom Treick 28. Ms. Hamilton-Treick and Mr. Treick oppose the process in'-which the hearings on four annexations .were combined as causing hardship on those who wish to appeal. ' Even 'if the hearings had not been combined, the hearings'could have been, and most likely,would have been held at, the same meeting. Therefore,: the appeals.would have all been due at the same time., Combining the hearings allowed people to, state. their obj ections a single time so as to avoid multiple repeated testimony.. All persons were given a full opportunity to address any issues related to any of the. four annexations. 29. They also object to the boundaries as being irregular and question the voluntariness of the consents. These issues are'addressed above. 30. They also oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to'Tigard's TIF accounts. That is- not a relevant issue and does not relate to any applicable standard or criterion. . Philip E. Decker . t 31. Mr.-Decker opposes the annexations as not being contiguous. No property being annexed will be separated, from,the City by. any intervening unincorporated territory. The annexations are of contiguous property: 32. Mr..Decker _argues that ORS 222.115 allows annexation contracts'only for contiguous. parcels. ORS 222 does not, require,that property be contiguous at the. time an ; CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS.-- ANNEXATIONS Page 11 annexation contract is signed. One purpose of ORS '222.is to' allow properties that are not ' f contiguous to consenf to annexation so that they can receive urban services immediately' and be annexed later when intervening properties annex.' The contiguity requirement applies only when the annexation becomes effective., 33.. Mr. Decker argues that the areas being•annexed are irregularly shaped. The shape of the area being annexed i.s not an issue. a " 34.:, 'Mr. Decker argues.that previous annexations were improper. The previous annexations are final and have not been challenged: They cannot be collaterally attacked at. this time.: Comments In Support 35.After the hearing, the City received several written coninients,in support of the proposed 'annexations, including statements from•Sean Foushee; on behalf of the applicants for,the Mountain View Estates, from John Marquart on behalf of the applicant- for.the Wilson Ridge annexation, and from Tom Weber, on behalf of the owners of the- Arlington. Heights 3. property, all of whom stated that'the annexation applications were voluntary. ° Mr. Marquart'and Mr.,Weber addressed other issues, strongly supporting the;annexations ' of their respective areas: G:\muni\Tigard\revisedannexationf ndings0910105 °doc 1 CITY COUNCIL, FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 12' % J ~PSe ; O Chi n9S Wore Yx vi~~ ~ . FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS. At the August 9; 2005, the City Council received testimony from various persons regarding four oposed annexations. The Council allowed all parties until August 16 to, submit additional written • formation. This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised~y the testimony and written submissions. The Council received a request to reopen the record to\allow a response to the post-hearing written submissions and allowed until August 30 for pers, ns to raise new issues relating to the new testimony, as provided by ORS 197.763(6)(c) and 1 7.763(7). This document sets out the City's findings on the-legal and. factual issues raised by the estimony and written submissions. 1. After the Council allowed additional time to raise new issues in response to new evidence ' submitted in.the post-h aring written submissions,-the. City received two submissions,. both a-mails sent by Jul: Russell. Neither of those submissions.raises new issues because all- issues presente~ in her a-mails had'been raised previously. Furthermore, neither of the submissions addresses new evidence submitted after the close of the oral hearing, but simply contain Lther argument on the same factual and legal issues she and other opponents had raised in her earlier submissions. Therefore, neither are proper submissions under ORS 197.76 (6)(c) and 197.763(7). Issues Raised By Morelhan One Person HB 2484 2. Some people testified that House Bill 24, 4 (which has been enacted into law) either prevents the City from approving these exations or.demonstrates a- legislative intent that avote. is required in any,area to be annibxed. House Bill 2484 is straightforward. It amends ORS195.215, to make it clear that "annexation plans" under ORS Chapter 195 must be-approved both.by a majority of voters in the territory to be annexed and by a majority within the City. A. " HB,2484 does not apply to the annexation being considered by the City because' HB 2484 applies only to annexation plans 'der ORS Chapter 195, and the annexations before the City do not involve an exatiori plans or ORS Chapter 195. They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222, n particular ORS 222.125. HB 2484, even if it were effective, would not apply \inM t these annexations. B. HB 2484 requires a separate vote in the area to d for annexation plan annexations. However, requiring 'a vote in the annexed would be a meaningless and futile act for areas 'in which thregistered voters. There are no registered voters in the area to be annexetain View'Estates annexation (Z CA2004-00003) or in the Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge annexation area (ZCA2005700003). All of the registered voters in the Arlington Heights 3 (ZCA20005700001) and Wilson Ridge (ZCA 2005-'00002)\ nnexation have consented to annexation. ' CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 1 HB 2722 3. HB 2722 (which has been enacted into law) withdraws the right of cities to veto formation of new cities within three miles of their borders. Some opponents of annexation have. argued that the intent of this bill is that the wishes of citizens in the affected areas are respected. A. HB 2722 does not apply to annexations. B. The affected areas are the areas to be annexed. Two types of persons have ! interests in the affected areas - those who own property and those who reside there., All owners of all properties to be annexed, and, all voters in areas to be annexed-have consented to the annexation. -No owner or. resident in the areas to be annexed has indicated thatAhey •do not wish annexation. SB 877 4:' SB 877 (which has been enacted into law) has three major effects. One is that it limits- the' ability, of the City of Beaverton to annex "islands" of territory surrounded by that.' City. The second effect is that it requires a majority vote in the territory to be annexed.by means of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195. The third effect is to prohibit the annexation of certain types of industrial property without the consent of the owner. , A. . The provisions affecting only the. City of Beaverton do not apply to the City of Tigard. B. None of the proposed' annexations are "island" annexations, although an "island" is created by.the Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge annexation. C. The annexations are not annexation plan annexations and are not subject to ORS Chapter 195. D. The annexations. are not of industrial land and are not-the type of land that cannot ' be annexed' without the consent of the owner. The City has the consent of all owners of all land being annexed. Voluntary or Coerced Consents 5. Some persons argued.that the consents are not valid because they were coerced. A.. None of the people who provided consents stated they were coerced. Those who - testified that the consents`were coerced did not specify which persons were coerced., Several persons representing property owners (Tom Weber, John : Marquart, Sean Foushee, and Al Jeck) testified orally and/or in writing that consents were voluntary and not coerced. The City. Council finds that there is no evidence that any specific individual was coerced into consenting to annexation. CITY COUNCIL,FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 2 . If any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is likely that the person would have appeared at the hearing. The Council finds the , testimony of Tom Weber, John Marquart, Sean Foushee and Al Jeck to be more persuasive than the evidence of those claiming coercion because the named individuals were in a position to know whether the consents were voluntary or coerced and those who claimed that the consents were coerced did riot have personal knowledge regarding the consents. The Council concludes.that none of the consents were coerced. B. ORS 222.115 specifically authorizes contracts between a city and, a landowner. relating to the extraterritorial provision of service in which the landowner consents to annexation. The fact that the City requires a consent to annexation in return for a contract for the extraterritorial provision of service is explicitly authorized by statute and does not constitute coercion. The City provides planning and building. inspection services extraterritorially and may require consents to annexation in order to provide those services. . C. ORS 222.175 recognizes that cities may solicit consents to annexation. The fact that a. City seeks consents does not mean that they were coerced and does not invalidate the consents. Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use Proceeding 6. Some opponents argued that some of the consents were required in connection with land use proceedings, and the City cannot require consents to annexation in order to process a, land use application or as a condition, of a land use approval. A. For consents that were provided in connection with a land use approval, the time to challenge the City's authority to impose the consents was during the land use process. In each case, the land use process has been completed and the appeal period has passed. The'requirement to provide a consent to annexation can no longer be challenged. B. None of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use proceedings have in any way challenged the consents or the requirement to provide. the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified that they affirmatively desire that their properties be annexed to the City of Tigard. General Concern _ For The Bull Mountain Area 7. Some opponents stated concerns related to the Bull Mountain area in general and to their property in unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain. Some of them argue that the proposed annexations should not proceed because of the, negative vote when the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan was presented to fhe voters in the area to be annexed. CITY.COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 3 A. The rights and interests of the.owners and registered voters in the areas proposed for annexation are recognized by statute. The statutes do not create a legally protected interest for other persons. B., These annexations are different from the annexation plan presented to the voters. These annexations are property-specific annexations under ORS Chapter 222. The City and the annexation applicants are not requesting approval of an annexation plan. The rejection of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195 does not prevent later annexation of specific territory 'under a different annexation statute. "Double Majority Vote 8. Some opponents of the annexation argued that -a "double majority.. vote (a separately tabulated vote in the City and.in the area to be annexed) is required. A. A "double majority" vote is or will.be required for'annexation plans under.ORS Chapter•05. However, for annexations under ORS Chapter 222, votes'in the city are not required unless required by City charter or ordinance, and votes in the area to be annexed are not required if certain criteria are met. A vote in the area to be- annexed is not -required if, all of the owners of all of the land and a majority- of the electors in the area to be annexed, if any, consent to the annexation. ORS 222;125.. The City Charter and Code do riot require a. vote within the City. B: As to each of 'the annexations, the City has received the consents of all of the owners of all -of the land. The City has also received the consents of all of the registered voters .in each area that has registered voters.- These annexations are not annexation plan annexations under ORS 195, so the double'majority requirement does not apply. The City is not required to hold a vote in any of the territories to be annexed, either because there are no, electors in the areas to be annexed or because the City has the consent of a majority of the electors in those areas. "Islands" Of Unincorporated Areas Surrounded By The City 9. Some opponents argued that these annexations create islands of unincorporated areas surrounded by the City. They also note that the City may later annex those islands` without consent of owners or electors. A. There is no legal prohibition on'the creation of islands. The City must consider annexation applications-that create islands under applicable standards. While the Council must consider whether the borders created by an annexation are so irregular as to potentially cause problems with the provision of police services; the police department accepts these boundaries as being acceptable and not causing confusion for the'provision-of police services. The,police department has provided wriften. statements that they can provide services. The Council finds that CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS - ANNEXATIONS Page 4 . the boundaries are not irregular to the extent they create confusion in the provision of police services. B. The City does have`the authority to annex islands, but is aware that the statutory authority to annex islands may be withdrawn, as it has been withdrawn from one other city and from certain types of land.. The possibility of a future annexation proceeding is not an applicable standard 'or criterion in deciding whether to. approve these annexations. Regular Boundaries 10. Several persons commented that the annexations will not result in a regular boundary. A. The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1.2, which provides: Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on, findings with respect to the following: a. The annexation eliminate -an existing "pocket" or "island of unincorporated territory; or b. The annexation *ill* not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the.parcel is within or outside the City; c.. The police department has commented on the annexation; d. The land is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is contiguous to the City boundary; e. The annexation can'be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1..1(a).. B. Policy 10. 1.2 is complied with if either (1) subsection a or (2) subsections b through e are met. These annexations comply with subsections b through e. The annexation boundary will not make it difficult for the police in emergency situations, to determine whether the parcel'is within or without the City. The. police department has commented on the annexation and stated that it is capable of providing service.- All areas proposed for annexation are within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and.are contiguous to the City. The services listed in 10. f. 1 (a) (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police and, fire, protection) can be provided to the areas to be annexed - the City and other responsible service, providers have capacity to provide service to the areas to be'arinexed. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 5 Individual Comments - Testimony. at Hearin Les and Ellen Godowski 11; The Godowskis argued- that the' annexations will also prevent certain areas from creating their own cities or annexing to King City. A.. The City has no obligation to refrain from annexing territory based on the possibility that some other city may be incorporated in the area at some point in the future. B. All applicable plans and intergovernmental agreements that address urbanization or the provision of urban services designate Tigard as -the City that will annex l and/or provide urban services to the areas being annexed. Charles Radley .12.' Charles Radley argued that the annexations would violate Dolan v. City of Tigard and that there is no "essential nexus.'.' Mr. Radley also provided a written document. A. Dolan v. City of Tigard applies only to cases in which the City exacts property from a property owner at the time of a land use approval.. Dolan does not apply to annexations B. To. the'extent 'the Mr. Radley is arguing that the, City could not require the property owners to consent to annexation as a condition of land use approval, that challenge,is too late. The land use approvals. are final and cannot be, collaterally -challenged. Furthermore, Mr. Radley was not the applicant or a landowner in any of the land use cases and lacks standing to challenge conditions.that have been accepted by the applicants... ; C.' The "essential nexus" requirement is imposed on exactions by the Nollan v. California Coastal Commission case. Like Dolan, the case applies only to, exactions at the time of land use approvals;,not'to annexations. To the extent that Mr. Radley is challenging conditions'of approval in the previous land use cases, . that challenge is too late, and Mr. Radley lacks standing to make.the challenge. . D. The document that'Mr. Radley provided is an excerpt discussing the requirement, under Rhode Island law, that a building official must issue a building permit that meets the requirements of the building code. Rhode Island law concerning building officials is, not relevant to any issue regarding these ,annexations. If Mr: Radley is, attempting to argue that the City cannot require a'consent to annexation, " any requirement regarding consents to annexations by the City are imposed in the context -of a land use proceeding. The City has more authority and more discretion in land use proceedings than in issuing building permits. 'CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS,-- ANNEXATIONS Page 6 Julie Russell 13.. In addition to issues, raised by others, Ms. Russell claimed that the map included with the notice of annexationwas inaccurate as to.which areas are included within the City limits and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell argued that the City's process violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1. and CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell stated dissatisfaction- With the proposed zoning: A. The maps provided with the'notice were accurate. They showed the location of the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by a ,shaded yellow area. There is no requirement to.provide a map with the notice of the annexation hearing. Evert if there was some inaccuracy, the maps provided sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed and their relationship to,the City:_The City provided notice in compliance with all applicable requirements. In the event that some person may have failed to receive notice, failure of a person to receive notice does not invalidate the notice, which was properly provided. B. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1:1 provides: "The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is not an approval standard or criterion for an annexation application. The City's land use regulations have been acknowledged,.and those regulations provide the. process, including citizen involvement, for considering land use applications. - -'That process includes notice and a hearing, and the City provided notice and a hearing, as required by the CDC. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations. demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by the regulations. Citizens, including Ms. Russell, have had the, opportunity to be involved in process. The,process of necessity works differently, in a quasi-judicial land use process than in a legislative process. C. CDC 18.320.020 provides: 18.320.020 Approval Proeess and Standards A. • Approval Process. Annexations shall be. processed by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Chapter 18:390 using standards of.approval contained in.,Subsection B2 below. B. Approval Criteria. The decision to approve, approve with ' modification, or deny an application to annex property to the City shall, be'based on the following criteria: . 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS 7 ANNEXATIONS. . Page 7 annexation area; and 2. The'applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied: C. Assignment of comprehensive` plan and zoning designations.. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall -be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur . automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the. City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City designations which are the most similar. A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or . zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. D. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations to City designations which are most similar: ; The City used a Type IV approval process. The City has capacity to, provide all required services to the area to be annexed, and the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, including those.in Chapter 10, have been satisfied. The'properties being annexed already have City comprehensive plan and zoning . designations, that have been adopted and imposed by the County. Ms. Russell specifically. argued that the City lacks parks capacity in the area. However, the City has. sufficient parks capacity throughout the'City to provide service to its residents; including residents in the areas.being annexed. The services listed in the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer, storm sewer, streets, police and fire protection,. are the essential services that must be available, and those services will be available to the newly annexed areas. Ms. Russell questioned the ;adequacy- of the street system. The City Council finds'that the street system is adequate-to provide service and will remain adequate. If the properties are not annexed, they could still be developed consistent with the County zoning,: which is the same as . City zoning; so whether the properties are annexed or not does not affect the impact on-the street.system. •D. The areas to be annexed all have existing City zones that were established consistent with Table 320.1. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Community Development Code provisions: CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS.-- ANNEXATIONS Page,8 Scott Miller 14., In addition to issues addressed in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person' section of these findings, Mr: Miller stated a concern with anincrease in:taxes. Mr. Miller also argued that the consents received by the City.are'not consents. ; A:- Mr. Miller does not own property being, annexed. His property is outside, the area proposed for'annexation. His taxes will not increase as a result of the annexation. The property owners in the area to be annexed have consented to the annexation. Whether taxes may increase.is not an applicable standard or criterion. in deciding , I an annexation. B.- For each of the annexations, the. City has, either the written consent of the property owners or a petition from the property owners to initiate the annexation. All°are valid consents. Lisa Hamilton Treick 15: In,addition to issues.address in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these findings; Ms. Hamilton Treick argue&that Measure 37 gives property owners rights'. , that are violated by these annexations. , A. Ms..Haimlton Treick does not own property, that will be annexed by these annexations: All owners 'of property being annexed have consented to,these, annexations. The property owners or., their representatives who testified expressly stated that they voluntarily' consent to the annexations. One of them, Tom Weber, stated that he actively sought annexation `to Tigard because of the value it brings to his property. Measure 37 not an applicable standard or criterion for annexation. 16. Ms. HamiltonTreick also argued that the City has no authority, to condition land use, approvals or acceptance.ofland use applications on a consent to annexation. .A. This is.a challenge to final land use decisions that were not been appealed within the:time allowed by statute. Those decisions canriot-be collaterally attacked. B. The various agreements with the'County, and other urban service providers,, . including,the;Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement andTigard Urban Service Agreement, anticipate that the City will'provide planning services and will ultimately annex Tigard's urban:service area. Requiring annexation is not inconsistent,with those agreements.. Urban_'Service Agreement Section I:D provides that the City shall endeavor to., annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed for annexation'.' Requiring annexation consents effectuates this provision 'of the Urban Service Agreement. The Urban Services intergovernmental Agreement gives .Tigard all land use decision-making authority CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 9 , over the area to be annexed. Land use authority includes the authority to impose conditions. The City has the authority to impose a condition. of approval requiring ` consent to annexation when it receives a land use application for a property outside the City. Individual Comments- Post-Hearing Written Submissions. Julie Russell .17. Ms. Russell again discussed. general opposition to annexation in the Bull Mountain area, " HB 2484, SB. 887, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.,1: Land 10:1.2, and CDC 18.320.020.'. The above findings address those arguments. 18. Ms. Russell also argues that the.zonmg is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull Mountain Community'Plan.. The areas have all been rezoned by the County, and the zoning being, applied is the zoning required by CDC 18.320. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the written testimony of John-Marquart, there .is little or no practical difference between _ Washington County-R-6 and Tigard R77 zoning, as.applied. .19..' Ms. Russell argues that not everyone who`was entitled to receive notice actually, received notice. The City provided.notice; as required .by applicable regulations. While it is possible'that some, persons did not•receive notice; the City complies with the notice requirements. . 20. Ms. Russell complains about.possible effects on other service providers. The City has not'received;any negative comments from. other service providers. All service providers in the area have agreed that the area being annexed will be annexed to Tigard. Services will be provided as agreed'.to in the-Urban Services Agreements entere& into by the City and other service,providers. 21. Ms.. Russell,argues that the annexation will interfere with the orderly and economic provision of public, facilities and services. However, her argument appears to be that services can,be provided without annexation:,'' That does-not mean that annexation will disrupt or interfere with•service provision. The agreements between;ihe service providers will ensure;orderly and economic_provision of services. 22. Ms. Russell, argues that the Alberta Rider School'property•should not bd'annexed. None ' of her~arguments'relate to any applicable standard or-critetion. 23. Ms. Russell opposes the Summit Ridge annexation,as.non-contiguous.. The Summit Ridge area being annexed.will be contiguous with the City on annexation. r 24. Ms. Russell,o*cts to the Annexation of Arlington Heights.3 on the grounds that the, annexation will cause annexation to ,a homeowners association. That argument does note . related to any applicable standard, or criterion. Participation in a homeowner's association is a. matter of contract between the parties and unrelated to a City's authority CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS „ Page 10 to annex. Ms Russell also argues that the City cannot annex only part of a subdivision. No applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation of part-6f a subdivision: Furthermore, Arlington Heights 3 is a separate subdivision from Arlington Heights 1 and 2 LaVelle and Marie Day . t 25. The Days object to. the annexation on the grounds that the annexation, may interfere with efforts to' annex to King City or to create a new city. This argument does not relate to any . applicable criterion or standard. Norte of the Days' other arguments are based on applicable standards or criteria. - Jackie and Gary Kisling 26. The Kislings raise issues related to HB 2484 and HB 2722., Those bills are addressed in the above findings. HeM Kane 27. Mr. Kane makes arguments against island annexations. None of the annexations are island annexations. Lisa Hamilton-Treick and Tom Treick ' 28. Ms. Hamilton_Treick and Mr. Treick oppose the process in which the hearings on four annexations were combined as causing hardship on those who wish to appeal. Even if the' hearings had not been combined, the hearings could have been, and most likely•would have been held at the same meeting. Therefore, the appeals would have all'been_due at the same time. - Combining the hearings -allowed people',to state their objections a single time so as to avoid multiple repeated testimony. All persons were given a full . opportunity to address any issues related to any of the four annexations. 29: They also object to the boundaries as being'irregular and question the voluntariness of the consents. These issues are addressed above. 30.' They also oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to Tigard 's. TIF accounts. That is not a.relevant issue and does not relate to any applicable standard or criterion. Philip E.' Decker.. 31. Mr. Decker opposes the annexations as not being contiguous. No property being annexed will be separated from the City by any intervening unincorporated territory. The annexations are of contiguous property.. 32., Mr. Decker argues that ORS 222.115 allows annexation contracts only for contiguous parcels. ORS 222.115. does riot require that property be contiguous at the time an CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 11 annexation contract is signed. One purpose of ORS 222-is to allow properties that are not contiguous to consent to annexation so that they can receive urban services immediately and be annexed later when intervening properties annex. The contiguity requirement applies only when the annexation becomes'effective. 33. Mr. Decker argues that the areas being annexed are irregularly. shaped. The shape of the area being annexed is not an issue. 34. Mr. Decker argues that previous annexations were improper. The previous annexations are final and have not been challenged. They, cannot be. collaterally attacked at this time. Comments In Support 35. After the_hearing, the City received several written comments in support of the proposed annexations, including statements from Sean Foushee, on behalf of the applicants for the Mountain View Estates, from John Marquart on behalf of the applicant for the Wilson Ridge annexation, and from Tom Weber, on behalf of the owners of the Arlington Heights 3 property, all of whom stated that the annexation applications were voluntary. Mr. Marquart and Mr. Weber addressed other, issues, strongly.supporting the annexations t . of their, respective areas.' G:\muni\Tigard\reviscaannexationfmdings090105,doc ' a CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 12 Vie i,, i ~s_koe.s e s-e n GC r `~?~s I.~ r.P.re: rP,V r S2~ , FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS . t the August 9, 2005, the City Council received testimony from various persons regarding our proposed annexations. The Council allowed all parties until August 16 to submit additional tten information. This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues. aised by the testimony and written submissions. The Council received a request to reopen the record to allow a response to the post-hearing written submissions and allowed until August 30 for persons to raise new issues relating to the new testimony,-as provided by . ORS 197.763(6)(c) Td 197.763(7).° This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and factual issues raised by, the testimony and written submissions. 1. After the Council` llowed additional time to raise new issues in response to new evidence . submitted in the po \t-hearing written submissions, the City received two submissions, both e-mails .sent.by Julie Russell. Neither of those submissions raises new issues because all issues presented'in her e-mails had been raised previously. Furthermore, neither of the submissions addresses new evidence submitted after the close of the oral hearing, but simply'contain further argument on the same factual and legal issues she and other opponents had raised her earlier submissions.. Therefore, neither are proper submissions under ORS 197. 3(6)(c) and 197.763(7). Issues Raised By More Than One Person BB 2484 _ 2. Some people testified that House Bill 24 4 (which has been enacted into law) either prevents the City from approving'these exations or demonstrates a- legislative intent that avote is required in any area to be ann ed. House Bill 2484 is straightforward. It, amends ORS 195.215, to make it clear that "`vexation plans" under ORS Chapter 195 must be approved both by y-a majority of voters the territory to be annexed and by a majority within the City. A. HB 2484 does not apply to the annexations b ing considered by the City because BB 2484 applies only'to annexation plans and ORS Chapter 195, and the annexations before the City do not involve anne tion plans or ORS Chapter 195. They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222, in icular ORS 222.125. HB 2484, even if it were effective, would not apply.to o affect these annexations., B. HB 2484 requires a separate vote in the area to be anne d for annexation plan annexations. However, requiring a vote in the area to be exed would be a meaningless and futile act for areas in which there areno re 'stered voters. There are no registered voters in the area to be annexed in Mountain Uiew'Estates annexation (ZCA2004--00003) or in. the Alberta Rider/Summit dge annexation area (ZCA2005-00003). All of the registered voters in the Arlingt Heights 3 (ZCA20005-00001) arid,Wilsoii.Ridgd (ZCA 2005-00002) annexati.o have consented to annexation. . CITY,COUNCILTINDINGS - ANNEXATIONS ' Page 1 HB 2722 3. HB 2722 (which has been enacted into law) withdraws the right of cities to veto' formation of new cities within three miles of their borders. Some opponents of annexation have argued that the intent of this bill is that the wishes of citizens in the affected areas are respected.' A. HB 2722 does not apply to annexations. B. The affected areas are the areas to be annexed. Two types of persons have interests in the affected areas - those who own property and those who reside there. All owners of all properties to be annexed, and all voters in areas to be annexed have consented to the annexation. No owner or resident in the areas to be annexed.has indicated that they do not wish annexation. SB 877, 4. SB 877 (which has been enacted into law) has three major effects. One is that it limits the ability of the City of Beaverton to annex "islands" of territory.surrounded by that City. The second effect is that'it requires a majority vote in the territory to be annexed by means of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195. The third effect is to prohibit the . annexation of certain types of industrial property without the consent of the owner. A. The provisions affecting only the City of Beaverton do not apply to the City of Tigard. - B. None of the proposed annexations are "island" annexations, although an "island" is created by the Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge annexation. C. The annexations are not annexation plan, annexations and are not subject to ORS Chapter 195. D. The annexations are not of industrial land and are not the type of land that cannot be annexed without the consent of the owner. The City has the consent of all owners of all land being annexed-. Voluntary or Coerced Consents 5. Some persons argued that the consents are not.valid because they were coerced. . A., .None of the people who provided consents stated they were coerced. Those-who testified that the consents were coerced did not specify which persons were coerced. Several persons representing property owners (Tom Weber, John . Marquart, Sean Foushee, and Al Jeck) testified orally and/or in writing that consents were voluntary and riot coerced. The City Council finds that there is no evidence that any specific individual was coerced into consenting to annexation. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 2 If any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is likely that the person would have appeared at the hearing. The Council finds the testimony of Tom Weber, John Marquart, Sean Foushee and Al, Jeck to be more . persuasive than the evidence of those claiming coercion because the named individuals were in a position.to know'whether the consents were voluntary or coerced and those who claimed that the consents were coerced did not have personal knowledge regarding the consents. The Council concludes that none of the consents were coerced. B. ORS 222.115 specifically authorizes contracts between a city and a landowner relating to the extraterritorial provision of service in which the landowner consents to annexation. The fact that the'City requires a consent to annexation in return for a contract for the extraterritorial provision of service is explicitly authorized by statute and does not constitute coercion. The City provides planning and building inspection services extraterritorially and may require consents to annexation in order to provide those services. C. ORS 222.175 recognizes that cities may solicit consents to annexation: The fact that a City seeks consents does not mean that they were coerced and does not invalidate the consents. Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use Proceeding 6. Some opponents argued that some of the consents were required in connection with land use proceedings, and the City cannot require consents to annexation in order to process a land use application or as a condition of a land use approval. A. For consents that were provided in connection with a land use approval, the time to challenge the City's authority to impose the consents was during the land use process. In each case, the land use process has been completed and the appeal period has passed. The requirement to provide a- consent to annexation can no longer be challenged. B. None of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use proceedings have in any way challenged the consents or the requirement to provide the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified that they affirmatively desire that their.properties be annexed to the City of Tigard. General Concern For The Bull Mountain Area 7. Some opponents stated concerns related to the Bull Mountain area in general and to their property in unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain. Some of them argue that the proposed annexations should not proceed because of the negative vote when'the Bull .Mountain Annexation Plan was presented to the voters in the area to be annexed. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS'- ANNEXATIONS Page 3 r A. The rights and interests of the. owners and registered voters in the areas proposed . for annexation are recognized by statute. The statutes do not create a legally protected interest for other persons. B. These annexations are different from the annexation plan presented to the voters. These annexations are property-specific annexations under ORS Chapter 222. The City and the annexation applicants are not requesting approval of an annexation plan. The rejection of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195 does not prevent later annexation of specific territory under a different annexation statute. "Double Majority" Vote 8. Some opponents of the annexation argued that a "double majority" vote (a separately tabulated vote in the City and in the area to be annexed) is required. A. A "double majority" vote is or will be required for annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195. However, for annexations under ORS Chapter 222, votes in the City are not required unless required by City charter or ordinance, and votes in the area to be annexed are not required if certain. criteria are met. A vote in the area to be annexed is not required if all of the owners of all of the land and a majority of the electors in the area to be annexed, if any, consent to-the annexation. ORS 222.125.: The City Charter and Code do. riot require a vote within the City. B. As to each of the annexations, the City has received the consents of all of the owners of all of the land. The City has also received the consents of all of the registered voters in each area that has registered voters. These annexations are not annexation plan annexations under ORS 195, so the double majority requirement does not apply. The City is not required to hold a vote in any of the territories to be annexed, either because there are no electors in the areas to be annexed or because the City has the consent of a majority of the electors in those areas. "Islands" Of Unincorporated Areas Surrounded By. The City. 9. Some opponents argued that these annexations create islands of unincorporated areas surrounded by the City. They also note that the City may later annex those islands without consent of owners or electors. A. There is no legal prohibition on the creation of islands. The City must consider annexation applications that create islands under applicable standards. While the Council must consider whether the borders created by an annexation are so irregular as to potentially cause problems with the provision of police services, the police department accepts these boundaries as being acceptable and not . causing confusion for the provision of police. services. The police department has provided written statements that they can provide services. The Council finds that CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 4 the boundaries are not irregular to the extent they create confusion in the provision of police services. B. The City does have the authority to annex islands, but is aware that the statutory authority to annex islands may be withdrawn, as it has been withdrawn from one other city and from certain types of land: The possibility of a future annexation proceeding is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding whether to approve these annexations. Regular Boundaries 10. Several persons commented that the annexations will riot result in •a regular boundary. A. The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1.2, which provides: Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on findings with respect to"the following: a. The annexation eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island of unincorporated territory; or b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an, emergency situation to determine . whether the parcel is within or outside the City; c.. The police department has commented on the annexation; d. The land is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is contiguous to the City boundary; e,. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(a). B. Policy 10. 1.2 is complied with if either (1) subsection a or'(2) subsections b through e are met. These annexations comply with subsections b through e. The annexation boundary"will not make it difficult for the police in emergency situations to determine whether the parcel is within or without the City. The police department has commented on the annexation and stated that it is capable . of providing service. All areas proposed for annexation are within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and.are contiguous to the City. The services listed in' 10.1.1(a) (water, sewer, drainage, streets; police and fire protection) can .be provided to the areas to be annexed.- the City and other responsible service providers have capacity to provide service to the areas to be annexed. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 5 Individual Comments - Testimony.-at Hearing Les and Ellen Godowski 11. The Godowskis argued that the' annexations will also prevent certain areas from creating their own cities or annexing to King City. A. The City has no obligation to refrain from annexing territory based on the possibility that some other city may be incorporated in the area, at some point in the future. B. All applicable plans and intergovernmental agreements that address urbanization or the provision of urban services designate Tigard as the City that will annex and/or provide urban services to the areas being annexed. Charles Radley 12. Charles Radley argued that the annexations would violate Dolan v. City of Tigard :and A hat there is no "essential nexus." Mr. Radley also provided a written document. A.- Dolan v. City of Tigard applies only to cases in which the City exacts property from a property owner at the time of a land use approval. Dolan does not apply to annexations. B. To the extent the Mr. Radley is arguing that the City could not require the property owners to* consent to annexation as a condition of land use approval, that , ;challenge is.too late. The land use approvals.are final and cannot be collaterally challenged. Furthermore, Mr. Radley was not the applicant or. a landowner in any of the land use cases and lacks standing to challenge conditions that have been accepted by the applicants. C. The."essential nexus" requirement.is imposed on exactions, by the Nollan v. California, Coastal Commission, case. Like-.Dolan, the case applies only to exactions at the time of land use approvals, not to annexations. To the extent that Mr. Radley.is challenging conditions of approval in the previous land use cases, that challenge is "too late, and Mr. Radley lacks standing to make the challenge. D. The document that Mr. Radley provided is an excerpt discussing the requirement, under Rhode Island law, that a building official must, issue a building permit that meets,the requirements of the building code., Rhode Island law'concerning building officials is not relevant to any issue regarding these annexations. If,Mr. Radley'is attempting. to argue-that the City cannot require a consent to annexation, any requirement regarding consents to annexations by the City are imposed in the context of a land use proceeding. The City has. more.authority and more discretion in land use proceedings than in issuing building permits.' CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS - ANNEXATIONS Page.6 Julie Russell 13. In addition to issues raised by others, Ms. Russell claimed that the map included'ovith the notice of annexation was, inaccurate as to.which areas are included within the City limits and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell argued that the City's process violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, and CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell stated dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning: A. The maps provided with the notice were accurate. They showed the location of the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas, within the city limits by a shaded.yellow area." There is no requirement to provide a map with the notice of the annexation hearing. Even if there was some inaccuracy, the.maps provided sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed and their relationship to. the City: The City provided notice in compliance .with all applicable requirements. In the event that some person may have failed to receive notice, failure of a person to receive notice does not invalidate the notice, which . was properly provided. . B. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2. 1.1 provides: "The City, shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall' assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is not an'approval`standard or criterion for an annexation application. The City's land use regulations have been acknowledged, and those regulations provide the process, including citizen involvement, for considering land use applications. That process includes notice and a hearing, and the City provided notice and a hearing, as required by the CDC. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by the regulations. Citizens, including Ms. Russell, have hadthe opportunity to be . involved in process. The, process of necessity works differently in a quasi-judicial land use process than in a legislative process. C. CDC 18.320.020 provides: " 18.320.020. Approval Process and Standards A.` ' Approval. Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390 using standards of approval contained in Subsection B2 below. B., Approval Criteria. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to, annex property to the City shall be based on the following criteria: 1; All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS ' 'Page 7 annexation area; and , 2. The applicable comprehensive.plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied.' 'C. - Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning- designations. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most' closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City designations which are the,most similar. A zone change-is. required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or . ` zoning map.designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. D. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations to 'City designations which are most similar. The City used, a Type. TV approval process. The City has capacity to provide all required services to the area to be annexed, and the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; including those in Chapter 10, have been satisfied. The properties .being annexed already have City comprehensive plan and zoning ' -designations, that have been adopted' and, imposed by the County. Ms.-Russell' r specifically argued that the City lacks parks capacity in the area. However, the City has sufficient parks capacity throughout the City to provide service to its residents, including residents in the areas being annexed. The'services listed in the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer, storm sewer, streets; police and fire protection, are the essential services that must be available, and those services will be available to the newly annexed areas. Ms. Russell questioned the adequacy of the street system. The City Council finds that the street system is adequate to provide service and will remain adequate. If the properties are not annexed, they could still, be developed consistent with the County zoning, which is the same as 'City zoning, so whether the, properties are annexed or not does not affect the impact on the street system. ' D.' The areas to be annexed all have existing City zones that were established consistent with Table 320.1. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Community Development Code provisions. s' CITY COUNCIL.FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page ,8 Scott Miller 14. In addition to issues addressed in the "Issues Raised•By More Than One Person" section of these findings, Mr. Miller stated a'concern with an increase in,taxes: Mr. Miller also argued that the consents received by. the City are not consents. A. " Mr. Miller does not own property being annexed. His propertyis outside the area . proposed for annexation. -His taxes will not increase as a result of the annexation. The property owners in the-area.to be annexed have'consented to the annexation. Whether taxes may increase is not an applicable, standard or criterion in deciding ari annexation. B. For each of the annexations, the City has either the written consent of the property owners or apetition from the property owners to initiate the annexation. All are valid consents. Lisa Hamilton Treick 15. In addition to issues•address in, the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of these findings,`Ms. Hamilton•Treick.argued that Measure 37 gives property owners rights that are violated by these annexations. A. Ms. -Hamilton Treick'does not own property that will be annexed by. these annexations. All owners of property being annexed have consented to these- annexations. The property`•owners or their representatives who testified: expressly stated that 'they voluntarily consent to the. annexations..One of them, Tom Weber, stated that he actively sought annexation to Tigard because of the value it brings " to his property. Measure 37 is 'not an'applicable standard or criterion for annexation.: f 1-6. Ms. Hamilton Treick also argued that the City has,no authority to condition land use approvals or,acceptance of land use applications on' a consent to annexation. i A. This is a challenge to final land use decisions that were not been appealed-within the time allowed by statute. Those decisions cannot be collaterally attacked. B:, The various agreements with the County"and other urban service providers, including-the Urban.Services Intergovernmental Agreement and Tigard Urban Service Agreement, anticipate.thai the' City` will provide planning services and will ultimately'annex.Tigard's urban service area. Requiting annexation is not . inconsistent `with`those agreements. 'Urban Service Agreement Section I.D provides~that the City shall endeavor to annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed for annexation., Requiring annexation con'sents' effectuates this • :provision of the :Urban Service Agreement., The Urban Services -Intergovernmental Agreement gives Tigard all- land use& decision-making authority . CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS . -Page 9 , over the area to be annexed: Land use authority'includes the authority to impose conditions-The City has the authority to impose a condition of approval requiring consent to annexation when it receives a land use application for a property outside the City. Individual Comments - Post-Hearing. Written Submissions Julie Russell 17. ' Ms. Russell again discussed general. opposition to annexation in the Bull: Mountain area, HB 2484; SB 887, Comprehensive Plan Policies I I.l.and 10.1.2, and CDC 18.320.020. The above findings address those arguments. 18. „ Ms. Russell also argues that the.zoning is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull Mountain _ Community Plan.. The areas have all been rezoned by the County-and the zoning being applied is the zoning required by CDC, 18.320. Furthermore,'as demonstrated in the : written testimony of John Marquart, there is little or no practical difference between Washington County R-6 and Tigard R-7 zoning, as applied. 19. Ms. Russell argues that not everyone who was entitled to receive notice actually received,, notice. The City provided notice as required by applicable regulations. While it is, possible that some, persons did not receive notice, the City complies with the notice requirements. 20. Ms. Russell complains about-possible effects on other'service providers: The City has not received any negative comments from other service providers. All service providers in the area have agreed that the area being annexed will be annexed to Tigard.' Services will be provided as agreed to in the Urban Services Agreements entered into by the City and other service providers. 21. Ms. Russell argues that the,annexation will interfere with the orderly and economic' provision of public facilities and services. However, her argument appears to be that services.can be provided without annexation. That does not mean that annexation will disrupt or interfere with service provision. The agreements between the service providers will ensure orderly and economic provision of services. 22. Ms. Russell argues that the Alberta Rider School property, should not be annexed. None of her arguments relate to any applicable standard or. criterion.,,- 23. Ms. Russell opposes the Summit Ridge annexation as non-contiguous. The Summit Ridge area being annexed. will be -contiguous with the City on annexation.' 24. Ms. Russell obje'cts' to the Annexation of Arlington Heights 3 on the grounds that the annexation will cause annexation to a homeowners association. That argument does not related to any applicable standard or criterion.', Participation in a homeowner's association is a matter of contract between the parties and unrelated to a City's authority CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS-- ANNEXATIONS Page' 10 to annex: Ms Russell: also argues that the City cannot annex only. part of a-subdivision. No applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation of part of a subdivision. - Furthermore, Arlington Heights '3 is a separate subdivision from Arlington Heights' l and 2. LaVelle and Marie Day 25. The Days object to, the annexation on the grounds that the annexation may interfere with - . efforts to annex to King City or to create a new city.. This argument does not relate to any applicable criterion or standard. None of the Days' other arguments are based on applicable standards or criteria. Jackie and GM Kisling 26. The Kislings raise issues related to HB 2484 and HB 2722. Those.bills are addressed in. . the above findings. 'HenEy Kane 27. Mr. Kane makes arguments against island annexations. None of the annexations are. island annexations. Lisa Hamilton-Treick and Tom Treick '28. . Ms. Hamilton-Treick and Mr. Treick oppose the process in which 'the hearings on four 4 annexations were combined as causing hardship on those who wish to appeal. • Even if the hearings had not been combined, the hearings could have been, and most likely would have been held at the same meeting. Therefore, the appeals would have all been due at the same time. Combining the hearings allowed people to state their objections a single time so as to avoid multiple repeated testimony. All persons were given a full opportunity to address any issues related to any of the four annexations. 29 They also object to the boundaries as being irregular and question the voluntariness of the consents.' These issues are addressed above. 30. They also oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to Tigard's TIF accounts. That is not a relevant-issue.and does not relate to any applicable standard or criterion. Philip E. Decker 31. Mr. Decker opposes the annexations as.not being contiguous. No property being annexed will be separated from the City by any intervening unincorporated territory. The annexations.are of contiguous property. 32.., Mr. Decker argues that ORS 222.115 allows annexation contracts only for contiguous parcels. ORS 222.115 does not require that property be contiguous at the time. an CITY COUNCIL.FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS Page 11 annexation contract is''sighed.. One purpose of ORS 222..is to allow properties, that are not contiguous to consent to annexation so that they can receive urban services immediately' and-be annexed later when intervening properties-annex.,. The contiguity requirement applies only-when the annexation becomes: effective. 33: Mr. Decker argues that the areas being annexed are irregularly shaped. The shape of the area being annexed is not an issue: , 34. Mr.. Decker; argues that previous annexations. were, improper. The previous' annexations are final and have not been challenged. They cannot be collaterally attacked at this time. Comments In Support - After the hearing, the City received several written comments in support of the proposed ' annexations, including statements from •Sean•Foushee, on behalf of the applicants -for the Mountain View Estates, from John Marquart on behalf of the applicant for the Wilson Ridge annexation, and. from ToroWeber, on behalf of the`owners of the. Arlington. Heights 3. property,-all of',khom stated that the annexation applications were voluntary. Mr. Marquart and Mr. Weber addressed-other issues, strongly supporting the annexations, of their respective. areas: Q:\muni\Tigard\revisedannexationfindings090105.doc . CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS - Page 1,2 AGENDA ITEM. No. 7.. 4 Date: Sept. 13, 200&,, PUBLI'%C%i`HEARIN,G (Q- UASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SPlease,sign on'the following page(s) if you wish'to testify before City Council on: PUBLIC-.,HEARING,', CONSIDER AN.'ORDINANCE ADOPTING. ` FINDINGS'TO'6RANT;'A'BAILLOT MEASURE • • .37 WAIVER OF. THE .R-25 ZONING RESTRICTIONS 'FORA PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION O.F SW SCHOLLS` FERRY ROAD AND.135T" .AVENUE This is, a pity of • Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of"Oregon's public meeting-and records laws. All written and oral.testimony become part of the: public record and.is openly a'v'ailable to -all: members,'of the -public.. ,The-_ names and', addresses; of persons who attend or participate, in 'City of Tigard public meetings., will be included. in the meeting minutes, which is a public record Due to Time,Constraints City Council May Impose A Time, Limiton Testimony,' i:WDM\GREER\CCSIGNUP\PH TESTIMONY QJ.DOC t 1 h 7. AGENDA ITEM No. 7 r Date: Sept. 13, 2005 This is a City of Tigard public-meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws., All written and oral testimony become part of. the public' record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings ' will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. . PLEASE PRINT Proponent -(Speaking In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, -Address & Phone No. 110W . $W E SCO(V Op, Orn Name, Address Phone No. Name, Address,,& Phone No.. Name, Address & Phone No. EQic W~NGE2 ' • IIOgU SW. ~.3iSF . • ; SU ~ _ ~•6 -.1027 ~ Name, Address.& Phone No. Name, Address & Phone Name, Address & Phone No. iK d vs W t- e oR R 70 70 S~o3/d Name, Address & Phone No. N'me, Addrg I & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. L. ~.l~W Oi~T • ~~05 ~ S~ i3l ~ 50 3 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No, ec-Eon ' 6.e q , Additional People -Testified for Agenda.Item No. 7, but did not sign in on testimony sheet Measure 37 Claim- Grabhorn Holly Clark 10855 SW 130th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Alice Ellis Gaut 10947 SW Chateau Lane Tigard, OR 97224 ktedmk'athY~ggSW 3l)g13 - additionat people testifying m37 daim.doc - ' t t , AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF. September 13,.2005 CITY OF• TIGARD, .OREGON ' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Grabhorn Ballot Measure 37 Claim PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD OK MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE C(QU The City Council is being asked to consider a Ballot Measure 37 claim for compensation or waiver of zoning regulations for property located along SW. Scholls Ferry Road in Tigard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt an ordinance granting a waiver ,of R-25 zoning restrictions 'to allow a commercial shopping center, various tenants/uses, as well as retail sales; vehicle fuel sales and' signage of the C-G General Commercial zone for the Grabhorn property at 135h and Scholls Ferry Road subject to applying for and receiying,site development review approval. INFORMATION SUMMARY Burton'Grabh6m is seeking a waiver and/or change in. the underlying zoning and comprehensive plan designation . on. a 10.45 acres site located at the corner of -SW 135th Avenue- and Scholls Ferry Road. Ballot Measure 37 established a process whereby 'a property owner or family member who acquired, property prior to the adoption of land use regulations can make a claim if the land use regulation has restricted the use of property and reduced the market value of the property. The unit of government responsible for the regulation must either pay compensation for the reduced property value or waive the regulation. The City Attorney provided training for the City Council on February 5, 2005 and August 23, 2005 on the basic provisions of Ballot Measure 37. This is the first claim to come before the Tigard City . Council. One other application is pending. The property is zoned R-25 (Medium-High Residential). The. property is one of the last two large vacant parcels zoned R-25 that have not been approved for development: Other' than an attached housing development and a, day care center that were approved on the . original parcel no other development has occurred on the site. • In 1995 Haggens Corporation applied for a comprehensive plan and zone change to•allow. construction of a super market on'the site. The request was denied by the City Council because of the potential loss of housing density- The applicant's representative Roger (Mike) Van provided a market analysis that indicates a net difference in value between commercially zoned property and the recent sale of residential property in the R-25 designation results in a difference of $4,462360. Mr. Grabhorn acquired the property on. September 22, 1952. This not only preceded.the City's zoning but the City's incorporation in 1961. The claimant states that it is his preference for a waiver to allow C-G or C-C commercial zoning with vehicle fuel sales permitted. The claimant also cites access'iestrictions on all abutting streets. and sign restrictions. The applicant's market. analysis does not address the reduction in market value as a result of access restrictions or sign requirements. f In regard to access there are options that meet code requirements to provide access in addition to access from Scholls Ferry Road where the claimant lias a settlement from ODOT. The access requirements do not restrict the use of the property and such' a claim is notripe since no access has yet been prevented to the property in question. Signage according to the C-G zone standards are the most permissive in the City and should provide for advertising any of the claimants desired uses. Should the City Council choose to grant the waiver, it is suggested that the waiver be granted to the person, Burton . Grabhorn, and not the land, and be specific to allow retail and vehicle fuel sales. Once the site development review application is filed, the application will be processed under the 'C-G standards even if the property is transferred after the site development review application is filed, and development may occur consistent with any approved site development review. Once the property is developed, it may continue to be used for retail and vehicle fuel sales, even if there are changes in ownership or tenants. Once Mr. Grabhorn ceases to be the owner, however, any expansion or major modification beyond development applied for during his ownership shall be subject to the rules in effect at the time of change in ownership. It is expected that the legal issues related to such a waiver will be determined in the future as similar such issues are decided by the courts and legislature. -OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Deny. the waiver 2. Pay compensation to the land owner in which case the City may want to obtain its own market assessment of the amount.of compensation. 3. Conduct hearings for a comprehensive plan and zone change to C-G General Commercial. .VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Ballot Measure 37 issues in this and other cases do not.conform to existing provisions of the City's code and while providing for business and economic development could also run counter to housing goals` and community character and livability goals. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Attachment 1 - Ordinance 2. • Attachment 2 - Staff Report • 3. Attachment 3 - Applicant's Materials' FISCAL NOTES The applicant provided a $1,000 deposifto'cover application review costs. This deposit will be refunded to the applicant if the claim or waiver is granted. The are no budgeted funds to pay compensation. eas-u re, 37r am orn" Glra"b N Lot'63,*,H' Wk's",Beard Town homes; WCTM f . 1 S1,33AG Tax: Lot 14.5.00 ' ~~"n@ k~ '=.'eta', q~.~ ,i,~ ,p. ':z•"'f ~"~'s 9 ,3,~ s`p" ,x ° A "y x kt R~ ~a ° ~.`+<:is(Y• Y•.. ~S r~ _ gar. h' h;.wry •tl a. ~ n Fbyp" ~.F ~•gxs y?R ~ -;i}O f`~~: 'f,; n'~'.4•#~~~s,",r yn, %"~°"'..~a ~l-Y'~. "~•:x, q'M `k~' a y... fflll p.,c t.. rt Yy ~ -'4 ^ .'r~EPv • ~ x ~ ~ rya, . a:,C,.'2-., r . °::,,y , a N s „may m», 'r® W •=a~ ryry ' . ' ~ a't {j N ~~`s ^e•`••• w y~-~~~5?.~y,• 'tlj ~t~ay5,>y _ }+'#t s .''y#~ ~'gf ;q~~',R. ",j`<r~',' *a ":2r. ' °~i A p`ta 047 • r _ 1}Y..#„ .ai ~ . +a~ k~ty •A3 4 Vie'+a x~i ~ + ~ - ~a,..a4xrr,~ ° ~ W .c a Win.. r i Additional People - Testified for Agenda Item No. 7, "but did not sign in on testimony,,_ sheet Measure 37 Claim ! Grabhorn Holly Clark , 1.0855 SW'.1301h Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 , Alice Ellis, Gaut.,- 10947 SW Chateau Lane Tigard, OR 97224. , I:\adm\cathy\ccm\2005\050913-additional •people testifying m37.claim _doc - , AGENDA, ITEM No. •8 Date:- Sept. 13, 2005 TESTIMONY SIGN-UP -SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on:. PUBLIC COMMENT CONSIDER APPOINTING CRAIG PROSSER AS TIGARD• CITY' MANAGER. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All writteri-and oral testimony become part of the public.record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or. participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Due.tolime Constraints City,Counil. May Impose A Time -Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 Date: Sept. 13, 2005 Name Street Address City, State, Zip r i . i:\adm\greer\cily council\ccsignup\public comment appt city manager.doc t AGENDA ITEM. NO. 8 Date: Sept. 13, 2005 Name. Street Address City, State, Zip .t, f i:\adm\greer\city coundl\ccsignup\public comment appt city manager.doc ' t AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF September 13, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY , ISSUE/AGENDAITITLE Appoint Craig Prosser City Manager and Authorize Mayor to Sign Employment Agreement PREPARED BY: S,andy Zodrow, HR Director DEPT HEAD OK; CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council appoint Craig- Prosser; Interim City Manager; as City Manager, effective September 13, 2005,and authorize the Mayor to, sign an employment agreement-between the City Of Tigard and 'Mr' Prosser? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Appoint Craig Prosser City Manager effective September 13,,2005-and authorize the Mayor to sign an employment agreement between the City of Tigard and Mr: Prosser INFORMATION SUMMARY :After a nationwide' search for -a new City Manager, the Tigard City Council has selected'Craig Prosser as their sole finalist for appointment to the City Manager vacancy.: The Mayor and Council, have, spent the last few weeks developing and discussing the terms of the employment contract between Mr:-Prosser and the City of Tigard. As- a result, a proposed employment,agreement has been prepared for Council',s approval and'is.attached as Exhibit A. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED A nationwide recruitment was conducted and applications were considered:by the Council VISION'TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable ; ATTACHMENT LIST Exhibit A, Employment Agreement between, Craig Prosser, City Manager and the City of Tigard FISCAL NOTES The City Manager is an authorized position within,the City's current budget r 4 i • Nr T1. and . , r Lo . AGAR E . Ci AGREE CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SECTION'1: TERM I SECTION 2: DUTIES AND AUTHORITY 1 SECTION 3: COMPENSATION 2 • SECTION 4: HEALTH, DISABILITY AND LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS 2 SECTION 5: VACATION, MANAGEMENT, AND SICK LEAVE SECTION 6: VEHICLE ALLOWANCE ~ 3 SECTION 7: RETIREMENT , ~ 3 TRAVEL..; ..............:...........:..:.......:......3 • SECTION'S: PROFESSIONAL AND CIVIC MEMBERSHIPS AND SECTION 9: TERMINATION SECTION 10: SEVERANCE ..............................5 ' SECTION 11: RESIGNATION 5 SECTION 12: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION... " 5 SECTION 13: HOURS OF WORK.......;. f' '5 SECTION 14: OUTSIDE'ACTIVITIES ..........5 SECTION 15: INDEMNIFICATION .5 SECTION 16: BONDING ..........................6 SECTION 17•. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ' 6 • . " SECTION, 18: NOTICES . . .......6 6 :.i.:..; SECTION 19: GENERAL PROVISIONS' .7 SECTION 2.0: ARBITRATION. • c, City Manager Employment Agreement Introduction This Agreement, made and entered into this September 13, 2005, by and between the City of Tigard, Oregon, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter called "Emplo'yer" ),and. Craig Prosser, (hereinafter called "Employee") an individual who has the education, training and experience in local government management, both of whom agree as -follows: Section 1: Term This agreement shall remain in full force in effect-from September 13, 2005;.until July 31', 2009, or until terminated by the Employer or the Employee .as provided in this agreement. If not previously terminated as provided in this agreement, the term of this agreement, and the period ' of Employee's employment shall be automatically extended from year to year. for additional periods of one year each following expiration of the initial four-year term unless either party gives written notice to the other not less'than ninety (90) days before the expiration of the initial or any extended term, that this agreement shall be terminated or'renegotiated. The giving of such notice terminates the agreement at the end-.of the initial term or extended term: in which such notice is given. Section 2:- -Duties and Authority. Employer agrees to.employ Craig Prosser' as City Manager to perform the functions and duties specified in the Charter. and Municipal Code of the City of Tigard and to perform other legally permissible and proper duties and functions assigned by City Council. These duties and, , . functions include, but are not limited to: A. Guiding, managing and directing the day-to-day administrative, operations, consistent with the goals and priorities established by the Mayor and City Council; ; B. Providing strategic research, recommendations and management leadership to the Mayor and City Council on budgets, programs, policies-and services; C. Appointing, supervising, disciplining and removing appointive personnel, except! appointees of the Mayor or City Council; „ . D. Acting as chief budget and fiscal officer of the City and submitting the annual. and capital program to the Mayor and City Council; E: Supervising the administration of and assuming responsibility for the enforcement of all laws and ordinances executed within the City; F. Serving as the chief purchasing and business agent of the City; G. Preparing, and presenting information and recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding the operations and policies of the City; H. Policy advice to elected officials, and open communication with the community so as to foster responsive and courteous,public service. The Council shall meet with Employee as determined necessary by the Council for the purpose of setting goals and priorities for Employee's performance. In performing the services contemplated by this Agreement, the Employee, shall. faithfully observe and comply with all federal, state and local laws, City Charter, ordinances and regulations applicable to the service to be rendered under this Agreement. Section 3: Compensation A. Base Salary: The Employer agrees. to pay the Employee an annual base salary of $116,500, retroactive to August 1, 2005, payable in installments at the same time that the other management employees of the Employer are paid: B. Employee's annual base salary shall be, automatically amended to reflect any cost of living adjustments that are provided by Council to management, employees of the City. C. March 1, 2006, and on an annual basis thereafter, consideration shall be given to increased compensation based upon Employee's satisfactory performance of Employee's duties and functions, and satisfaction of the goals and priorities established by the Council. Such increased compensation may come in the form of cost of living and/or performance adjustments to Employee's base salary, performance bonuses, or both. D., The Employer will look to the following cities for guidance in determining appropriate compensation provided to employee: Beaverton, Gresham, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Sherwood, Tualatin, and West Linn, Oregon. Section 4: Health, Disability and Life Insurance Benefits A. The Employer agrees to provide the same health and welfare benefits for the Employee and his dependents, and to contribute towards the cost of such benefits, to the same degree that it. provides and,contributes to all. other management employees of the City. In the event Employee is required to contribute toward the. premium cost of such benefits, Employee agrees to the deduction of such amounts from his paycheck. B. The Employer agrees to provide and to contribute towards the cost of a standard life insurance policy for the Employee to the'same degree that it provides and contributes to all other management employees of the City. C. The Employer. agrees to put into force and to contribute; towards the cost of long term disability coverage for the Employee to the same degree that it provides and contributes to all other management employees of the City. D.: The Employer shall make a monthly contribution to the Employee's VEBA account in the same amount or at the same rate as made for the management employees of the City. . 2. E. The Employer shall contribute up to $1,000 per year, based upon submittal of actual billings by the Employee for Life Insurance, Long Term Care Insurance, or both, as, selected by the Employee. The tinployee shall name tlie,beneficiary of the insurance policy(ies). Section 5: Vacation,'Management, and Sick Leave A. The Employee shall accrue sick leave and vacation leave in'the same manner and amount as is accrued by other management employees of the City, except that Employee shall continue to accrue vacation at the 20 year service level. At the commencement of Employee's employment as City Manager, Employee may carry over any existing banks of leave that he has earned while' previously employed with the City. 'B. Upon signing of this agreement, the Employee shall receive a total of five (5) days of. management leave each fiscal year, to be taken consistent with City personnel, policies as applied to management employees. Management leave does not accrue from one fiscal year to. the next, and any unused management leave remaining in the Employee,'s management leave bank will be lost if not used by the end of each fiscal year. C. Except as otherwise stated in this Section, the Employee is entitled to accrue all unused leave without limit. In the event the Employee's employment is terminated, either voluntarily or involuntarily, the Employee shall be compensated for all vacation time, and all management leave accrued prior to the date of termination. Employee shall not be_ eligible to receive any cash or retirement credit for unused sick leave. Section 6: Vehicle Allowance The Employer agrees to pay to the Employee, during the term of this Agreement and in addition to other salary and benefits herein provided, the sum of $4,020 per year, payable bi-weekly on regular paydays of the City, as a vehicle allowance to be used to operate and maintain a 'vehicle. The Employee shall be responsible for paying for liability, property damage, and comprehensive insurance coverage upon such vehicle and shall further be responsible for all expenses attendant to the operation, maintenance, repair, and regular replacement of said vehicle: The Employer ,shall reimburse the Employee at the IRS, standard, mileage rate for any business use of the vehicle beyond "a fifty-mile radius of the City Administrative building.. Section 7: Retirement a The Employer agrees to pay an amount equal to the City's retirement plan contribution and deferred compensation contributions as are made for all other management employees in equal proportionate amount each pay period. Section 8: Professional and Civic Memberships and Travel' The Employer agrees to budget for and to pay for professional dues and subscriptions of the Employee necessary for continuation and full participation in national, regional, state, and local associations, and organizations necessary and desirable for the Employee's continued professional participation, growth, and advancement, and for the good of the, Employer. Eligible,, professional organizations include the International City Managers' Association, the Government 3 Finance Officers' Association, and such other organizations as may be approved from time to time by the City Council. The Employer agrees to budget for and to pay for travel and subsistence-expenses of the Employee for professional and official travel, meetings, and occasions to adequately continue the professional development of the Employee and to pursue necessary officiate fuinctions.for the Employer, including but not limited to the ICMA Annual Conference or the.GFOA Annual . Conference, the League of Oregon Cities, and such other national, regional, state, and.local governmental groups and committees in which the Employee serves as a-member, as,may be approved from time to time by the City. Council. The Employer, agrees to budget for and to.pay for travel and subsistence expenses of the Employee for short courses, institutes, and seminars that are necessary for the Employee's professional development and for the good of the Employer, as may be approved from time to time by the City Council. The Employer acknowledges the value of having the Employee participate and be directly involved in local civic,clubs or organizations. Accordingly, the Employer shall pay for the reasonable membership fees and/or dues,to enable the Employee to become..an active member in local civic clubs or organizations, as may be approved from time to time by the City Council. Section 9: Termination For the purpose of this agreement, termination shall occur when: A. The majority of the governing body votes to terminate the Employee at a duly authorized public meeting. ' B. If the Employer, 'citizens, or the legislature acts to amend any provisions of the City Charter pertaining to the role, powers, duties, authority, responsibilities of the Employee's, position that, substantially changes the form of government, the Employee shall have the right ' to declare that such amendments constitute termination. C. If the Employer reduces the base salary, compensation or any other financial benefit of the Employee, unless it is applied in no greater percentage than the average reduction of all department heads, such action shall constitute a breach.of this agreement and will be regarded as a termination. • . -D: If the Employee resigns following an:'offer to accept resignation, whether formal or informal, by the Employer, then the Employee may declare a termination as of the date of the 'y suggestion. Written notice of a breach of contract shall be provided, in accordance with the provisions of Section 18. ' .4 Section 10: Severance In the event Employee is terminated by the City Council during such a time that Employee is willing and able to perform Employee's duties under this Agreement, then in that event Employer agrees to pay Employee a lump sum cash payment-equal to six (6) months aggregate salary. 'Employer will also continue, at its expense, Employee's health and welfare and life insurance benefits for 6 months, or until Employee is professionally reemployed, whichever comes first. In the event Employee is terminated for gross negligence or misconduct that is deemed detrimental to the best interests of the City, Employer shall have no obligation to pay any of the' severance payments or benefits provided in this'paragraph. Section 11: Resignation -In the event that the Employee voluntarily resigns his/her position with the Employer, the Employee shall provide a minimum *of 30 days notice unless the parties agree otherwise. Section 12: Performance Evaluation The Employer shall annually review the performance of the Employee in August subject to a l process, form, criteria, and format for the evaluation which shall be mutually agreed upon by the Employer and the Employee. The process at a minimum shall include the opportunity for both parties to: (1) prepare. a written evaluation, (2).meet and discuss the. evaluation, and (3) present a written summary of the evaluation results. The final written evaluation should be completed and delivered to the Employee within 30 days of the evaluation meeting. The date during which the annual performance evaluation must be'conducted may be adjusted by mutual, consent of the parties. Section 13: Hours of Work It is recognized that the Employee must devote a great deal of time outside the normal office hours on business for the Employer, and to that end the:Employee shall be allowed to establish an appropriate work schedule. Section 14: Outside Activities The employment provided for by this Agreement shall be the Employee's sole employment. Recognizing that certain outside consulting or teaching opportunities provide indirect benefits to the Employer and the community, the.Employee may elect to accept limited teaching, consulting or other business opportunities with the understanding that such arrangements shall not constitute interference with nor a conflict of interest with his or her responsibilities under this Agreement. Section 15: Indemnification ' The. City agrees to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the Employee from any and all demands, claims, suits, actions, and legal proceedings brought against Employee in his individual capacity, or in his official capacity as agent and employee of the City, as to any actions of Employee within the scope of.his employment. The City-agrees to pay premiums on 5_ appropriate insurance policies through the City's normal insurance program and through the J Public Officials Liability Insurance Program of the International City Management Association. Section 16: Bonding The Employer shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bonds required- of the Employee under any law or ordinance: Section 17: Other Terms•and Conditions of Employment The Employer, only upon agreement with the Employee; shall fix any such other terms and conditions of employment, as it may determine from time to time, relating to the performance of the Employee, provided such terms and conditions are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, the City of Tigard Charter or any other law. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Employee shall be entitled to the highest level of benefits that-are enjoyed by department heads of the Employer as provided in the Charter, Code, Personnel Rules and Regulations or by .practice. Section 18: Notices Notice pursuant to this Agreement shall be given by depositing in the custody of the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: (1) EMPLOYER: Mayor City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. s Tigard, Oregon 97223 (2) EMPLOYEE: Craig Prosser 1199 Larch St. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Alternatively, notice required pursuant to this Agreement may be personally.served in the same manner as is applicable to civil.judicial practice. Notice shall be deemed given as of the. date.of personal service or as the date of deposit of such written notice in the course of transmission in the United States Postal Service. Section 19: General Provisions A. Integration. This Agreement sets forth and. establishes the entire understanding between the Employer and'the Employee relating to the employment of the.Employee by the Employer. Any prior discussions or representations by or between the parties are merged into. and rendered null and void by this Agreement. The -parties by mutual written agreement may amend any provision of this agreement during the life of the agreement.. Such amendments shall be incorporated and made a part of this agreement. B. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding on the Employer and the Employee as well as their heirs', assigns; executors, personal representatives and successors in interest. C. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective on September 13, 2005. D. Severability. The invalidity or partial invalidity of any portion of this Agreement will not affect the validity of any other provision. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, the remaining provisions shall be deemed to be in full force and effect as if they have been executed by both parties subsequent to the expungement orJudicial modification of the invalid provision. 'Section 20: Arbitration The parties ,agree that any dispute about the validity, interpretation, effect or alleged violation of this Agreement by either Employee or the City must be submitted to final and binding arbitration ' pursuant to the then effective arbitration rules of Arbitration Service of Portland, Inc. or the American Arbitration Association, whichever organization is selected by the party who first initiates arbitration by filing a claim in accordance with the filing rules of the organization selected. The parties, agree that the prevailing party will be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and damages from the losing party that maybe incurred as a result of the arbitration claim. The parties agree that judgment upon the award rendered pursuant to such arbitration may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. IN WITNEES WHEREOF, the CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON has cause this Agreement to be signed.and executed and the EMPLOYEE has signed and executed this Agreement, both in duplicate, on the date first written above. Craig Zirksen, Mayor Craig Prosser, City Employee City of Tigard 1w1v ATTEST: City Recorder' APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney AGENDA ITEM # q FOR AGENDA OF September 13, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE . Reimbursement to Venture Properties for Wateyyrline~~ Construction PREPARED BY: Brian Rager DEPT HEAD OK P-'CITY MGR OK Vl ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD Shall the LCRB authorize the reimbursement of funds to Venture Properties for the construction of a large diameter transmission waterline through the Summit Ridge Subdivision development? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the LCRB authorize the reimbursement of $124,665.06 to Venture Properties. INFORMATION SUMMARY Section 10.070.C of the LCRB Rules provides that when a developer is required by condition of approval in a land use action to construct public improvements, the City can consider the developer a sole source and is not required to bid the work in a competitive process. Venture Properties was conditioned to install an 18-inch public transmission waterline through their Summit Ridge Subdivision development that will support the 550-foot pressure zone improvements in that area. Venture Properties completed that work and the waterline is now ready for use. The City will pay (reimburse) only for the cost of the over-sizing. Over-sizing is when a developer is required to install a larger line than what the development specifically needs,, but is necessary for the benefit of the overall water system. Staff reviewed the cost information and verified that the expenses were justified and corresponded to the approved plans for the water line. The attached,memorandum provides additional information about the improvements and the requested action. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a ' VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY n/a ATTACHMENT LIST 1 1. Staff memo, dated August 26, 2005 2. Map showing the waterline in relation to Summit Ridge FISCAL NOTES The amount of reimbursement to Venture Properties is $124,665:06. Each year, the City budgets funds in the Water SDC Fund to cover expenses for pipeline extensions or waterline over-sizing in private developments. Adequate funds were budgeted in FY 04/05 for this project, but Staff was not able to process this reimbursement within that fiscal year window. However, there are sufficient appropriations in the FY 2005-06 Water SDC Fund budget to allow this expenditure. I:Wdm~packet'051050809\0809051crbventum mimb-ais.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Local Contract Review Board FROM: Brian Rager, Assistant Public Works Director RE: Reimbursement to Venture Properties for Water Line Construction DATE: August 26, 2005 Background Section 10.070.C of the City of Tigard Local Contract Review Board Rules, states that: "At times, private developers provide public improvements for the City as required by a condition of land use approval or as required by a development agreement with the City. The developer in those circumstances is conclusively deemed to be a sole source for the provision of the public improvements, without the need for findings. No competitive process is required to enter into a development agreement that includes the provision of public services by a developer or for a developer to provide and the City to accept public improvements as required by a condition of approval." - The City has been working toward making improvements to the 550-foot pressure zone for the public water system. A 3.0 million .gallon (MG) reservoir is currently proposed near the top of Bull Mountain, in the vicinity of the Alberta Rider Elementary School and the Arbor Summit and Summit Ridge subdivision developments. That reservoir will feed' the 550-foot pressure zone, which lies to the south of Bull Mountain Road. In order to serve the 550-foot pressure zone, an 18-inch transmission waterline is needed that will connect to the future reservoir and run south through the Summit Ridge development. The Summit Ridge Subdivision (Land. Use No. SUB 2003-00009) was approved with a condition that required the developer to install the portion of the 18-inch transmission line through the site. Condition No. 29 reads as follows: "Prior to commencing onsite improvements, the applicant's engineer shall submit construction plans that show they will install an 18-inch water distribution line through this project along a route approved by the Public Works Director and City Engineer. The applicant's engineer shall also provide an engineer's estimate for the 18-inch line. For the portion of line that will serve this development, the estimate must clearly show the difference in cost to upsize this line from 8-inch to 18-inch. " In accordance with 10.070.C of the LCRB Rules, Staff deemed it appropriate to get the waterline installed as a part of the development to avoid having to re-excavate the streets in the future, and because we anticipate the future reservoir to be constructed within the next few years. The developer has completed the 18-inch waterline through the site and the line is now ready to use once the reservoir is in place. Value of Improvements Venture Properties provided information to the City that showed the reimbursable costs to construct the transmission line was $124,665.06. Staff reviewed the cost information and verified that the expenses were justified and in.line with the approved plans for the water line. Staff budgets funds each fiscal year to cover pipeline extensions or waterline over- sizing in private developments. "Over-sizing" is when a developer is required to install a larger line than what their development specifically needs, but is necessary for the benefit of the overall water system. There were funds budgeted in FY 04/05 in this line item to cover the Summit Ridge reimbursement. However, Staff was not able to process the reimbursement request within the limits of the FY 04/05 budget window. Fortunately, there are sufficient appropriations in the FY 05/06 Water SDC Fund budget to allow this expenditure. Recommendation Staff finds that Venture Properties complied with Condition No. 29 of SUB 2003-00009, and recommends the LCRB authorize payment to Venture Properties in the amount of $124,665.06. is\pw\council packets\2005\091305\Venture Properties Reimbursement\091305 CC-Memo-Venture PROPOSED RE ERVOIR SITE O W B LL OUNT IN RO rT7D RIDER ARBOR SUMMIT SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT SITE ..W Y WATER TRANSMISSION o S M T RID LINE E E 0 BB o - o B~ ~ B z B a RO e e B o oa o m x w CITY OF TIGARD BULL MOUNTAIN J m CITY OF TIGARD WATER OREGON TRANSMISSION LINE / 0 o , Overview Map N 2 0 2 0 MurrgSmdh&Assomtes Ix j SCALE IN FEET 80gmee 0l avers * _ «r• a~m~i po laa am all MAY 2005