City Council Packet - 10/10/2006
City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223
.
.
TIGARD
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING October 10, 2046
COUNCIL MEETfNG WiLL BE TELEVISED
I:\Ofs\Donn a's\Ccpktl
,
Phone: 503.639.4171 Fax: 503.684.7297 • www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772
Agenda Item No.
For Agenda of ~i •.2 g• 0g
T'igard City Council Meeting Minutes
Date: October 10, 2006
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Place: Tigard Ciry Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
Attending: Mayor Craig Dirksen Presiding
CounciloY Sally HaYding
Councilor Sydney Sherwood
Councilor Nick Wilson
Councilox Tom Woodruff
enda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Stud Session
Briefing on Outreach Associate Planner Farrelly reviewed this topic
and Educarion with the Ciry Council. Information presented
Meetings with Urban included the following:
Renewal District
Property and Business ➢ Distributed a lettex dated October 6, 2006,
OwneYS concerning signed by Mayor Dirksen inviting
Land Use and Design involvement in developing new land use
Guidelines regulations fox the Downtown Uxban
Renewal area.
➢ The above letter was mailed to 500 people
today. The CCAC members and volunteers
will follow up to urge people to get involved.
➢ The two meetings announced in the letter
will be in an Open House foxmat with four
information stations set up.
In response to a question from City Manager
Prosser, Associate Plannex Farrelly advised he
had not heard about plans for a convenience
store to be located in the downtown.
Admuustrative Items ➢ Associate Planner Farrelly advised he
followed up with an inquiry to TradeY Joes
and found out they have no interest in
opening up a stoYe in the space vacated by
Haggens.
➢ Tonight's Business Meeting: `
o Item No. 2- Citizen Communication -
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 1
enda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Tualatin Resouxce Center Annual
Update by Catherine West will be
rescheduled.
o Item No. 4- Update on the 41'`
Bxigade by the American Legion will be
rescheduled due to illness of one of the
presenters.
➢ Council discussed the meeting schedule for
November, Decembex and January :
o Thanksgiving week - The regulaxly
scheduled meeting will be held on
Tuesday, Novembex 21 (workshop
meeting)
o Thexe will be two business meetings in
Decembex, December 12 and 19. The
December 26 meeting will be
cancelled.
o The January 9, 2007, Council meeting
will be held for ceremonial items:
oaths of office, election of the Council president, Mayor's State of the City
Address, photographs, and a reception
for the newly elected Mayor and
Councilors. Business items may be
scheduled if needed before the next
scheduled business meeting of January
23, 2007.
➢ Council tentatively selected December 15,
2006 for its 2007 goal-setting meeting, 1-5
p.m. at Councilor Wilson's home.
(Recorder's Note: This meeting was
subsequendy rescheduled to December 11, 2006,
1-5 p.m., at Councilor Wilson's home.)
➢ Councilor Sherwood and Ms. Gretchen
Buehner said they would attend the kick-off
of the after-school programs. Councilor
Woodruff will try to attend. In an e-mail
message to the City ManageY, Youth Services
Officex Huiras advised there will be an
assembly at Twality Middle School, 4-5 p.m.,
Octobex 16, 2006 with a variety of speakers,
entertainers, and media representatives.
➢ Council members received a copy of an
October 10, 2006, memorandum from City
Engineer Duenas regaxding a meeting with
the Congressional delegation arranged by
Westside Economic Alliance. Also attached
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 2
enda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
to the memorandum was a flyex announcing
the WEA Bxeakfast Forum Series meeting
for October 26, 2006.
➢ Community Development Director Coffee
introduced the new Long-Range Planning
Manager Ron Bunch.
Executive Session The Tigaxd City Council went into Executive
Session at 6:45 p.m. to discuss real pxoperty
transaction negotiations and for consultation
with legal counsel regarding potential litigation
under ORS 192.660(2)(e) and (h).
Executive Session concluded at 7:19 p.m.
Business Meeting 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council and
the Local Contract Review Board to Order at
7:30 p.m.
1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Counciloxs
Harding, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communicarions & Liaison Reports
➢ Councilor Woodruff announced that the
October 31, 2006 5`h Tuesday Ciry Council
meeting was cancelled.
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda
Items: None
2. CITIZEN ➢ Tigard High School Student Envoy Jasmina
COMMUNICATION Dizdaxevik presented a City Council Student
Report. A copy of hex report is on file in the
City Recorder's office.
➢ Mayor Dirksen announced that Catherine
West would not be giving an update on the
Tualatin Resource Center. The Center is
temporarily closed aftex a recent break-in and
they are looking at other options to xelocate.
➢ City Manager Prosser gave a follow-up report
on revious citizen communication fxom 1Vt.
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 3
enda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
John Frewing. He noted a citizen had
suggested that the City revise its methodology
with xegard to Parks System Development
Charges. The idea was to take into account
the future value of land since it takes quite
awhile to purchase land. City Manager
Prosser said it would be difficult to detertnine
the future xeal estate market. He explained
the valuation methodology the City uses was
updated about two years ago to calculate
. changes in land value, which is a fee fortnula
based on xnaxket value. The fee is then
multiplied by an average of two indices: one
reflecting the change in construction costs and
one reflecting changes in land acquisition
costs. This information will be forwarded to
Mr. Frewing.
➢ City Managex Prosser also provided a follow-
up report to a citizen inquiry about
development on 79`'' Avenue. Communiry
Development Director Coffee and Ciry
Engineer Duenas will be meeting with this
citizen later this week or next week. 3. Consent Agenda 3.1 Receive and File: Motion by Councilor
3.1.a Council CalendaY Haxding, seconded by
3.1.b Tentative Agenda Councilox Woodruff, to
approve the Consent
3.2 Loca1 Contract Review Board Agenda.
3.2.a Award contract for Hydtogeologist of
Recoxd The motion was approved
3.2.b Award Contracts for Traffic and by a unanimous vote of
Transportation Engineering Services on Council pxesent.
an as-Required Basis
Mayor Dirksen Yes
Councilor Harding Yes
Counalor Sherwood Yes
Councilor Wilson Yes
Counalor Woodruff Yes
4. Update on the 41" This agenda item will be Yescheduled.
Brigade by the
American Legion
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 4
enda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
5. Resolution in Washington County Sheriff Rob Goxdon Motion by Councilor
Support of the addressed the City Council on the upcoming Sherwood, seconded by
Washington County election for which there is a County Public Mayor Dixksen, to adopt
Public Safety Levy Safety Measure (Ballot Measure 34-127). Resolution No. 06-62.
A copy of the slide presentation is on ftle in the The motion was approved
City RecoYder's office. by a unanimous vote of
Council present.
The purpose of the levy is to maintain public
countywide safety services such as jail, special Mayor Dirksen Yes
enfoxcement teams, pxosecutoxs, juvenile Councilor Harding Yes
counselors, pYObation and parole services, Councilor Sherwood Yes
emergency communications and emergency Councilor Wilson Yes
shelters for victims of domestic violence such as Councilor Woodruff Yes
Tigard's Good Neighbor Center. This is not a
new or additional tax. Approval by voters will
continue existing levy and budget levels.
Shexiff Gordon asked the City Council to
support the proposed resolution.
Councilox Shenvood thanked Sheriff Gordon
for attending tonight's meeting.
Mayor Dirksen noted that, while the funding
that would be designated for the homeless
sheltex appears to be a small amount,
approximately half of the shelter's budget would
come from this xesouxce.
Councilor Woodruff also thanked Sheriff
Gordon for attending and said it was a good
reminder about services offered by the Shexiffls
Department enhance the Police Depaxtment.
Sheriff Gordon xeviewed some of those services,
which included civil pxocess and service, the
county jail, search & rescue, investigations for
smallex cities, tactical/swat teams, forensics,
major crimes teams, and "cavalry" if more
officers are needed fox situations in local
jurisdictions. A portion of the levy would assist
with improvements for the 911 facility.
Sheriff Gordon, in xesponse to a question from
Councilor Woodruff, advised that there are 14
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 5
patrol districts within the County. The Sheriff's
office coordinates with local police agencies.
In response to a question from Councilor
Harding, Sheriff Goxdon explained how he
dexived the figures he used in his pxesentation to
show statistics on law enforcement services.
Councilor Haxding noted she would like to be
able to see txends for the last three years.
Councilor Haxding noted the most recent levy
expiYed last June. Sheriff Gordon noted there
have been some cost savings because of vacant
positions; however, those savings will be gone by
December 31, 2006. If the levy passes in
November, the Sheriff's office will be able to
boxrow from the County to continue the current
level of service until the new levy becomes
effective.
Mayor Ditksen added his thanks and noted he
appreciated the assistance the Sheriff's
Department pxovides to the police departtnent.
The City Council considered Resolution No. 06-
62 at this time:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-62 - A
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE LEVY
RENEWAL FOR MAINTAINING PUBLIC
SAFETY COUNTYWIDE SERVICES -
MEASURE 34-127
6. Update on Library Director Baxnes pxesented the staff
Proposed report and slide presentation for this agenda
Washington County item. A copy of the presentation is on file in the
Cooperarive Library City Recorder's office.
Services OpeYational
Levy Mayor Dirksen noted the City Council
considered and approved a resolution at a recent
City Council meeting. He also noted he is the
co-chair of the political cominittee supporting
this measure. Approval of the levy will "go a
long way" towards restoring the open hours of
the library.
Councilor Hardin referred to im acts on the
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 6
General Fund when additional money is needed
to fund libxary opexations.
Councilor Wilson noted the high level of
support the library has within the community.
He said he hopes the voters can support this
ballot measure in November.
7. Commuter Rail City Engineer Duenas, and Txi Met staff
Update members Elizabeth Davidson and Steve Witter
pxesented information and a slide pxesentation
to the City Council. A copy of the presentarion
is on file in the City Recoxder's office.
Major construction will begin on the
Washington County Commuter Rail this fall.
This 14.7-mile project is one of the fttst suburb-
to-suburb pxojects in the country and will
pYOVide a critical public transportation
alternative to better serve the Westside corxidor,
connecting the cities of Beaverton, Tigard,
Tualatin and Wilsonville.
Construction will begin in late October with
woxk beginning in Wilsonville, proceeding north
towards Beaverton. Fourteen miles of railroad
track will be reconstructed. Construction
unpacts were xeviewed including xoad closuxes at
railroad cxossings.
It is anticipated that the project will be
completed in mid-2008 with trains beginning
operations in the fall of 2008.
A groundbreaking ceremony is planned to be
held at the Tigard station on October 25. About
600 invitations have been mailed out for the
groundbreaking.
A review of safety concerns and measures wexe
reviewed. Of primary concexn within Tigard are
the crossings at Bonita and Main Street. Mr.
Witter noted that both commuter and freight
trains will be traveling thYOUgh at greater speeds
than what the trains axe now going. While the
commuter tYains will be slowing to stop at the
Ti axd station, the frei ht trains will not be
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 7
slowing down. Medians are proposed at the
Bonita Road and Main Street ra.ilxoad crossings.
Mayox Dirksen noted the impacts to businesses,
but said the trade-off might be that the ttaffic
flow is improved overall.
City Engineer Duenas said he anticipated that a signal will be needed in the future on Tiedeman
Street.
Discussion followed on potential impacts on
traffic duting the construction. Once the
construction begins, a schedule can be updated
regulaxly and an information line will be set up.
Construction activities will be coordinated with
schools and emergency services pxoviders.
Thexe was discussion on the specialized machine
called the P-811 that will be used to do the track
reconstruction work. Some track will be left and
a clean up plan will be implemented.
8. Public HeaYing Mayor Dixksen opened the public heaxing. Motion by Councilor
(Informational) to Sherwood, seconded by
ConsideY Resolution There were no City Council declarations or Councilor Wilson, to
No. 06-63 forming challenges. approve Resolution No.
Sanitary 06-63.
Reimbursement City Engineer Duenas presented the staff report
District No. 39 (SW and slide pxesentation for this agenda item. A The motion was appxoved
Hill View/102"d copy of the presentation is on file in the City by a unanimous vote of
Stteets Recorder's office. Council present.
There was no public testimony. Mayor Dirksen Yes
Councilor Hatding Yes
Staff recommended that the reunbursement Councilor Shenvood Yes
district be approved. Councilor Wilson Yes
CounaloY Woodruff Yes
MayoY Ditksen closed the public heaYing.
The Council considexed Resolution No. 06-63:
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 39 (SW HILL VIEW
STREET, 102ND AVENUE)
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 8
9. Continuation of Community Development Dixector Coffee Motion by Councilor
Public Hearing from presented a summary of the staff report. The Woodruff, seconded by
September 26, 2006 Ciry Council held a heaxing on September 26, Councilor Sherwood, to
(Quasi Judicial) to 2006, and agreed to continue the hearing to adopt Ordinance No. 06-
Consider the October 10, 2006. Council held the record 15.
Annexation of the open for written testimony to be submitted by 3
Cach Cxeek AYea p.m. on October 3. Additional written The motion was approved
(ZCA 2006-00002) testimony was submitted to the City Council in by a unanimous vote of
the Council meeting packet and this information Council present.
is on file in the City Recorder's office.
Mayor Dirksen Yes
Council members indicated they had reviewed Councilor Harding *Yes
the addittonal testimony. Councilor Shenvood Yes
Councilor Wilson Yes
Attached to these minutes, marked Exhibit A, is Councilor Woodruff Yes
the detailed summary of the remarks by the
Mayor and City Council members for this *Councilox Haxding
matter. explained at the time of
her vote that she was
After City Council members concluded their g°u?g to say yes, but she
remarks, Mayor Dirksen advised the Council also undexstood that it
would be considering Ordinance No. 06-15. could be undone by a
judge. She said she
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 35.78 needed to take a stand on
ACRES, APPROVING CACH CREEK AREA saying this is property that
ANNEXATION (ZCA2006-00002), AND we own, that it is part of
WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE our city. She said that if
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT the judge should rule
WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED anotheY way, we'll address
SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, that then.
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT;
WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE
WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR
CONTROL DISTRICT
Before the Council voted, Mayor Dirksen asked
City Attorney Ramis if the Council had
ovexlooked any steps needed prior to a vote of
the City Council? City Attorney Ramis advised
that the Council had taken the proper steps
undeY the statute and now was the tune to vote.
Also, in response to a question fxom Mayor
Dirksen, City Attorney Ramis confu-med that the
hearing had been closed previously.
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 9
Adjouxnment The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Motion by Councilor
Harding, seconded by
Councilor Woodnzff to
adjourn the meeting.
The motion was approved
by a unanimous vote of
Council present.
MayoY Dirksen Yes
Councilor Harding Yes
Councilor Sherwood Yes
Councilor Wilson Yes
Councilor Woodruff Yes
Catherine eadey, City Reco er _
Attest:
Mayor, ry of Tigard
Date: 1 I ' ~ C6 ' o ~Q
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 10
Exhibit A
Council Comments - Consideration of annexation of the Cach Creek Area (ZCA 2006-
0002) - October 10, 2006 (Agenda Item No. 9)
Mayor Dirksen asked if everyone reviewed the testimony received since September 26,
2006. All Council members indicated they had reviewed the testimony. Mayor Dirksen
asked for Council comments.
Councilor Harding
I think this is a tough one. It's hard, because if the shoe were on the other foot, we would
have the same people who were wanting to incorporate saying, "Wait" you know, if
they were a city this is land that we own that we want to be part of our City and we
wouldn't want someone else incorporating and taking part of that. I think we have to be
careful in looking what the properties are. We haven't received a lot of testimony from
other people. Part of ine says what is the harm if we wait until after the election...wait
until November. If they should incorporate then go from there and say should we hold
onto it or sell it, what could we do. It's kind of tough. I've been on the fence...I can
understand both sides. And, I understand our position, too. This is not something that
just came about at the time that they filed the petition to incorporate. But, it makes sense
to have property that we own in the City in our own City limits. So, with that I think that
we also have a judge that is going to be making a ruling that we haven't had come down
yet. So, it almost seems regardless of what we decide, it could be undone. Is it really
something we have to do tonight, even. Or, should we wait until the judge makes a
ruling. Tough call. I have been very undecided to be quite honest.
Council Woodruff
Well. as I have said before that I want to make sure that whenever I vote on something
that I think it is legal and that I think it is right to do for the people of Tigard. So, I take
this very seriously. I have prepared some remarks here related to this and to the process
we have been in for the last couple of years regarding issues related to annexation.
I do think that this is a legal act,based on my understanding. But in any case, as
Councilor Harding said, a judge is going to rule on that question now that the issue has
been given to the court by those people who are opposed to this particular annexation.
The second question, though, is easier for me: Whether it is the right thing to do? I think
if you took a survey of the residents of any city, I am convinced that they would agree
that property owned by a city should not end up in the city limits of another city. Land
and assets purchased by the taxpayers in a city should remain under the local control of
that city. That seems like a no brainer to me. I don't see how you can argue on the other
side of that.
My support of this proposal is not at all in conflict with my support of the people living in
the unincorporated Bull Mountain area. I believe that they have every "right to make
choices for their future. This Council has pulilicly stated that incorporation of that area is
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 1 1
a good thing. Since the majority chose not to join the City of Tigard, then incorporating
into a new city is a very viable option. We have done nothing to oppose this
incorporation vote.
I am disappointed with some of the people that have been out front on this issue for a
couple of years and are now leading the charge on this vote by making Tigard and this
Council the villain.
They have said things so often and so convincingly that I think many people come to
believe the things that have been said are true. I say shame on them for saying in a
hundred different ways that Tigard wants to force people to become a part of Tigard.
Over the last several years, there has not been one parcel annexed to Tigard against the
owner's will. .
I say shame on them for saying that all we care about is gobbling up more property just
so we can collect more taxes. Ninety percent of the property related to this proposal is
owned or controlled by the City of Tigard and it will generate no property tax income
whatsoever.
Shame on them for repeatedly saying that this City and Council do not care about the
community's quality of life or appearances. The implication is that we don't care about
families and that we break the rules so we can crowd as many homes as possible onto
every parcel. This is not only untrue, but it is very offensive.
Shame on them for always trying to make it seem that we are the ones that are not
cooperating and being reasonable. If there is to be a better dialogue and partnership, then
there needs to be compromise on their side as well.
And finally, shame on us for allowing these attacks on us to drain our time, our energy
and our resources. We have allowed some non-residents of Tigard to have more power
and influence than they deserve to have on this Council.
I support this ordinance and I am hopeful that no matter how the election turns out, the
relationship between Tigard and the people of Bull Mountain will improve.
Councilor Sherwood
I am going to support the annexation of this property for the following reasons:
The City of Tigard owns 17.71 acres of this land and, as a City Council we represent
45,500 residents who elected us. For us to leave this land in another city's boundaries
would be irresponsible to those citizens. It was the bulk of their money that purchased
this land and, as such, they have a vested interest in protecting their purchase. Because of
the agreements with Washington County, the City took steps years ago to buy this land
when it became available. For many years, the City Council of Tigard had a policy not to
purchase land for parks outside the city limits. This instance of Tigard owning land
outside this boundary for park land is a good example of why they didn't purchase land
Tigazd City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 12
for parks on Bull Mountain. If our efforts to annex this property become void, I would
look for input from the citizens of Tigard to determine if they wish to leave their property
inside the City of Bull Mountain or sell it. However, with the circumstances what they
are now, I am going to vote for this annexation until the courts decide whether we have
the right.
As for the olive branch approach - I would suggest that Tigard take the land into the City
of Tigard and develop it as park. We have been moving in that direction for years and
have been waiting until it had been annexed before developing it. Also, having the Water
District property inside our boundaries also gives us the impetus to develop even more
park land. If Bull Mountain does incorporate, it would take more than a few years before
they would have the available fiznds to develop parks. We would not be locking up parks
to residents outside the City limits, just like we don't do now with our parks. We
promised the people on the north side of Bull Mountain that we would build parks and
just as they were getting to the point of being able to assemble the land to reach the park
land, the new city boundaries of Bull Mountain were drawn. After two years of
negotiation, we purchased the Cach propeAy just before Bull Mountain incorporation was
legally being petitioned for.
If the people in Bull Mountain are really serious about an olive branch approach, I would
offer that the City of Tigard bring the land to be annexed into the city and develop it for
park land during the next few years for all of the residents on Bull Mountain. If the
incorporation is a positive vote, then we can work together to develop a plan for
maintenance of the said park land.
Councilor Wilson
Actually, some of Tom's comments are similar to mine. I don't really want to talk to
tonight about the legal issues. Everyone agrees that whether or not the annexation will be
allowed to stand will be decided by the courts based on the interpretation of the law.
What I really want to address is the morality of our decision, since it was called into
question by Mr. Franzke at the public hearing two weeks ago. Mr. Franzke writes and I
quote: "What I want to address is the `wrongness' of the City's action - it is wrong,
wrong, wrong. Has this Council no sense of decency? Has it no respect for the will of the
citizens who will be affected by its actions? Must the lust for more tax revenue trump
basic fairness? I urge the Council to do the right thing: stop the annexation effort
immediately and abide by the outcome of the incorporation vote on November 7cn „
Now, Mr. Franzke doesn't say why he thinks it is wrong to annex the property. Maybe
he thinks it is obvious. It is not obvious to me. I am going to show why, in fact, the
opposite is true - that the citizens of - for incorporation of Bull Mountain ought to step
aside and let the City of Tigard annex the property. Mr. Franzke, rather than advancing a
cogent argument, attacks this City Council saying that we have no sense of decency, no
respect for those impacted by our decisions. And then, he suggests a motive - that we
lust for tax revenue. Of course, that is ridiculous. There is no tax revenue, this is public
land. Was this a mistake by Mr. Franzke? I doubt it. Mr. Franzke is an attorney who
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 13
chooses his words carefully. No, I think this is a conscious effort to destroy the
credibility of this Council and the City of Tigard. Mr. Franzke is an attorney after all.
He is trained to tear down witnesses on the witness stand. In court it is more about
winning the argument than getting out the truth. This has been going on for two years.
We have been subject to baseless assertions, half-truths, insults, and yes sometimes even
lies.
Now, I like to believe the best about people. When people tell me something, I assume
they are telling the truth. But, when the same issues are said over and over and over
again and you correct them and they still say the same things, I call it what it is - it's a
lie.
Since our motives have been called into question, I would like to talk a little bit about
what my motives are and it is certainly not a lust for taxes.
I bought my first Tigard house in 1990. Shortly thereafter I was appointed to the
Planning Commission. Tigard at that time was a rapidly growing City. At that time,
from 1990 to now, one-third of all the houses that are currently standing in Tigard were
built - 15 years; one-third. As we sat on the Planning Commission, we saw subdivision
after subdivision application come through: Benchview Estates, Morning Star, Hillshire
Estates, Quail Hollow, Hillshire Woods, Mountain Highlands, Ravenridge, Arlington
Ridge, Eagle Pointe, Whistler's Walk, Daffodil Hill, Pacific Crest, and on and on and on.
Most of these subdivisions were on the west part of Tigard moving toward Bull Mountain
because that is where the land was. As the development pushed to the City limits and
annexations began to occur, it has been alleged that these annexations were forced
because of our IGA with Washington County. The Washington County IGA was signed
in 1997. In 1996, 18 acres were annexed - all voluntary. In 1995, 25 acres were
annexed. In 1994, 76 acres were annexed. These annexations occurred one by one over
time, voluntarily as development occurs.
We knew that there was no parks provider in unincorporated Washington County. We
knew that there was no legal way to stop or even slow development. We had to get out
there in front of development. We had to take action to annex Bull Mountain if there was
to be any park land up there at all. We knew we didn't have much time. When we
started the process, there were no park advocates from unincorporated Bull Mountain.
No one came to us and said they had a concern about development. Unincorporated Bull
Mountain was essentially asleep unaware of the onslaught of development that was just
about to hit it. The rest is history.
When we began the annexation effort, the tenor of the debate was against the City. It was
not particularly for anything. They blamed Tigard for all of the ills of Bull Mountain,
including the lack of park land. Mr. Franzke, when he testified to the Board of County
Commissioners on July 25t" said, "Here we are after many years of being governed by
Washington County followed by almost ten years of governance by the City of Tigard,
and we have no parks. So money has gone back and forth. It's gone through system
development charges and so on and so forth, but the money has not been spent on Bull Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 14
Mountain. And here we are two years after the annexation battle in which parks are a
major issue there and still nothing has been done."
There has never been a parks provider in unincorporated Bull Mountain. Washington
County has two parks. One is at Hagg Lake; it's self-supporting. The other is at Metzger.
The little park in Metzger was formed in the 70's by the citizens there when they formed
an LID. They support that themselves with their tax income. Every five to seven years
as inflation eats away at their budget, they have another vote to support another increase
in the amount that they tax themselves. It's always been approved. There has never been
any County tax money used for parks ever in Washington County.
Secondly, Tigard never governed Bull Mountain in any sense of the word. Tigard
administered the zoning and building codes. It is much in the same way that King City
hires Parson Brinkerhof to administer their zoning code. No one would say that Parsons
Brinkerhof governs King City. Tigard had no authority to change any zones on Bull
Mountain. It had no authority to change the code without the County Commissioners
voting on it. They collected fees from developers to pay for the administration. Those
fees were used for administrative use only.
Mr. Franzke mentioned system development charges. System development charges are
collected by the City of Tigard from developers for parks when building permits are
issued. No SDC's were ever collected in the unincorporated area. Mr. Franzke knows
this. I believe he intentionally used vague language to mislead. He said - listen carefully
to this -"So money has gone back and forth. It's gone through system development
charges and so on and so forth, but the money has not been spent on Bull Mountain."
The implication is that this money was collected from unincorporated Bull Mountain
residents and spent elsewhere. It is absolutely not true. Are you outraged Mr. Franzke?
Let me tell you who should be outraged - it should be the citizens inside the city limits
from whom these fees were collected. Not, from those in the unincorporated areas. It
should come from my neighbors, it should come from people like me.
I bought my second Tigard house three years ago. Systems development charges were
included in the purchase price and rolled over and I paid them through my mortgage.
When I bought my house, this is how much I paid. (At this point Councilor Wilson
placed a sum of cash on the desk before him.) That's $1700. That's real money. That's
what I paid for parks. All of the citizens in the unincorporated area together - all together
- paid less than this amount - less than one penny. Where's the outrage? Who deserves
the parks - these people or these people?
Who deserves a park? The median household income in Metzger is $30-40,000. The
median household income in Bull Mountain is $75,400,000. When people of modest
means adopt a can-do attitude, band together and achieve a community goal like the
people of Metzger did, they deserve to be commended. When they take care of
themselves without asking for a handout, that's admirable. When wealthy people
demand services they did not pay for and indeed refuse to pay for; when they come in
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 15
here and demand services from us, that deserves to be condemned. Mr. Franzke, save
your lectures about fairness and get out of the way, we have a park to build.
Mayor Dirksen
I appreciate all of things that my fellow Councilors have said. Like Councilor Harding, I
was kind of on the fence on this, trying to decide what made the most sense here
whether we should annex this or not in light of what also is happening on Bull Mountain
- with the incorporation effort and several other things. But also, like Councilor
Woodruff, I never had any doubt as to what would be the right thing to do. Sometimes
what makes sense and what's the right thing to do isn't the same thing. But, if I have to
make a decision between doing something that makes sense and doing the right thing, I'll
always pick - at least I try - to always pick the right thing. I told my sons when they
were growing up, when you have to make a decision and you know what the right thing
to do is, but sometimes it doesn't make sense because maybe nobody else is supporting it
- if you decide to do the right thing, later even after everything goes to hell, you can
always say, you know what I did was the right thing.
The really sad part about this today should be a day of celebration. Today is the day
when we get a chance to make a step to fulfill a promise that we made to the people that
live on Bull Mountain, both inside the city and outside the city - that we would do our
best to try to figure out a way to provide a park on Bull Mountain. We agreed with
everyone that the Bull Mountain area was a park-deficient area. And, our Parks Master
Plan recognized that also and for years has shown the need and identity for a park on Bull
Mountain. This Council has worked for years in an effort to find and purchase land on
the Mountain to provide the people there with a park. The people that were opposed to
the City for the annexation effort two years ago were amongst the loudest voices saying
that the City should be looking for land on Bull Mountain to build a park. We, since that
time - agreeing with them - we've made every effort to do so. Now, when we get to the
point where we are actually going to do it, we're being opposed, vilified, and punished by
those very same people for doing what they asked us to do. That's unfortunate. They
have their agenda, they've moved ahead. We have ours as well. They don't match.
That's not to be surprising.
This Council - I feel - this Council and even the previous Council - that worked toward
a conclusion on Bull Mountain, whether it be an annexation or whatever is appropriate -
has always done so in an effort to do for the community what the community needed.
My personal opinion is that the Friends of Bull Mountain and, to some extent, that it is
the same people that are the people for incorporation - what it has always been about for
them is not necessarily what the community needed or what anybody needed, but what
they wanted - what they wanted - those individuals. And, that's unfortunate. But
because they have that agenda and because they have that desire, doesn't mean that we
need to bend to it. We have no control over what they do and they will ultimately
determine their destiny on Bull Mountain. And, we don't know what that will be. But
we do know what we can do and what we have control over. And so we can move
forward with our plan in that direction. And I think that's what this Council needs to do
rather than trying to second guess what may or may not happen - what other people may
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 16
or may not choose to do. But rather, move ahead with what we know and what we are
secure in and what we have control over. And one of those things we can do, is move
forward toward fulfilling that promise that we promised years ago to provide a park on
Bull Mountain. And, for that reason, I would support this annexation as well.
IAadm\cethy\crm12008\081010.tloc
Tigard City Council Minutes - October 10, 2006 17
6.sf%h ~
City of Tigard, Oregon
=
Affidavit of Posting
In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) 06-15 -(This is a reposting of this ordinance.
Exhibit D was incorxectly marked. The oYiginal exhibits within the Council packet material
had Exhibits D and E xeversed. The oxdinance identifies Exhibit D in Section 2 as an
attachtnent to the oxdinance and that attachment should be "a copy of the staff report
including the amending memorandum.")
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
)
City of Tigard
I, Z 41 Ag&~ e4, being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath
(or affirmation), depose and say:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
NumbeY(s) _n,K' - z S , which were adopted at the City Council
meeting of z0 ' O-c , with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto
attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the
day- of ,LI /n CIe 6T_, 200(_.
1. Tigard Ciry Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Tigard Public L.ibrary, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
3. Tigard PeYmit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigaxd, Oregon
, CD.
Signature of Person who Performed osting
N~
SubscrihP.4 Vd su,-~ n (o~~affixm,ed) before me this o~ day of
o
Signature of Notary Public for O egon
t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCII,
ORDINANCE NO. 2006- iJ
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 35.78 ACRES, APPROVING CACH CREEK AREA
ANNEXATION (ZCA2006-00002), AND WITHDR.AWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD
WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL
DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(b), ORS 222.125, and ORS
222.170(1) and (2) to annex contiguous territory upon receiving written consent from owners of land
in the territory proposed to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties
which currently lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, the Washington County
Enhanced Sheriff s Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District
upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on September 26, 2006, to consider the
annexarion of eight (8) parcels (WCTM 2S105DB, Tax Lots 6100, 6200 & 400; WCTM 2S105DC, Tax
Lots 201, 300 & 400; and WCTM 2S105DD, Tax Lots 200 & 300) of land located adjacent to and west
of SW Sunrise Lane, and adjacent to and north of SW Bull Mountain Road, including right-of-way on
SW Sunrise Lane and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriff s Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Water District for certain debt
obligations, however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the Ciry to assume, therefore,
no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and
WHERFAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, norice was given and the Ciry 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 Sheriff s Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington Counry Street Lighring District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District on September 26, 2006; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties
from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced 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. 2006-ZCr12006-00002 Cach Creek Area Annexarion
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically !
changed to the City zoning most closely confornling to the Counry zoning and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09
and has been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the
Comprehensive Plan and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating
annexations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and
determ.ined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in the best
interest of the Ciry of Tigard.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard Ciry Council hereby annexes the parcels described in tlie 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 Counry Vector Control District.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council adopts the "Staff Report to the Ciry Council," as amended by
the memorandum from Emily Eng, dated October 5, 2006, as findings in support of
this decision; a copy of the staff report including the amending memorandum is
attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3: The Tigard Ciry Council adopts "Supplemental Findings in Support of Cach Creek Area .
Annexation" as findings in support of this decision. A copy of the Supplemental
Findings in Support of the Annexation is attached as Exhibit A to Addendum l to the
Staff Report and incorporated by this reference.
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by
the Mayor and posring by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: Ciry staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation,
including certified copies of the Ordinance xvith Metro for administrative processing,
filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities.
SECT'ION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effecrive date of the withdrawal of the property from
the Washington Counry Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban
Roads Maintenance District, Washington Counry Street Lighting District #1, and the
Washington County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this
annexation.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the
Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2007.
ORDINt1NCE NO. 2006-~ ZCA2006-00002 Cach Creek Area Annexation
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the
Secretary of State.
PASSED: By Uha-al mUUS vote of all Council members present after being read by number
and title only, this Q CL` day of 32006.
Cathy Wheadey, City Recorde
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of
2006.
t
Craig Dirksen, Mayor
Approved as to form:
ity Attomey Date
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-/,tT ZCA2006-00002 Cach Creek Area Annexation
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A,
'
ANNEXATTON DESCRIPTION
A ttact of land situated in the Section 5, Township 2 South Range 1 West Willamette Metidian described as
follows:
Beginning at the Northeast Comet of Stanhurst; thence N 00° 47' 29" E a distance of 1227.67 feefi thence .
N 00° 47' 29" E a distance of 225.00 feet; thence S 88° 52' 17" E a distance of 341.09 feet; thence S 00° 47'
29" W a distance of 225.00 feet; thence N 88° 52' 17" W a distance of 117.09 feet; thence S 00° 11' 04" E a
distance of 348.04 feet; thence S 89° 12' 37" E a distance of 420.08 feet; thence S 01° 12' 28" W a distance
of 615.64 feet; thence N 88° 41' 47" E a distance of 356.41 feet to the westerly right-of-way of SW Sunrise
Lane; the.nce along the said westerly right-of-way the following 7 coutses; thence N 14° 18' 07" W a
distance of 11.36 feet; theace N 16° 59' S3'.' E a distaace of 9268 feet; thence N 43° 18' 47" E a distance of
111.75 feet; thence N 04° 36' 28" E a distance of 155.66 feet; thence N 01° 25' S8" E a distance of
131.41feet; thence N 18° 08 48" W, along said westetly right-of-way, a distance of 101.59 feet; thence N 05°
04' 06" E, along said westerly right-of-way, a distance of 89.57 feet; thence S 84° 55' 54" E leaving said
westerly right-of-way, a distance of 40.00 feet to the easterly right-of-way of SW Sunrise Lane; the.nce N 84°
18' 39" E a distance of 123.69 feet; thence S 87° 13' 42" E a distance of 312.82 feet; thence S Ol° Ol' S0" W
a distance of 304.42 feet; thence N 89° 28' 08" W a distance of 409.21 feet to the easterlp right-of-way of SW
Sunrise Lane; thence, along said easterly right-of-way the following 8 courses, S 01° 25' 58" W a distance o£
11.28 feet; thence S 04° 36' 28" W a distance of 171.82 feet; thence S 43° 18' 47" W a distance of 116.45
feet; thence S 16° 59' 53". W a distance of 7212 feet; thence S 14° 18' 07" E a distance of 184.66 feet; thence
S 04° 12' 11" W a distance of 330.61 feet; thence S 00° 35' 17" W a distance of 322.91 feet; thence S 00° 15'
17" W a distance of 68.92 feet to the northetlg right-of-way of SW Sunrise Lane; thence S 89° 49' 00" E,
along said northerly right-of-way, a distance of 237.80 feet; thence S 00° 43' 00" W, along said northerly
right-of-way, a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 89° 49' 00" E, along said northerly, right-of-way, a distance of
920.60 feet; thence S O0° 56' 05" W a distance of 20.00 feet; thence N 89° 49' 00" W a distance of 4.92 feet
to the northwest comes of lot 19 Bull Mountatn Estates; thence S 00° 11' 00" W, along the west line of said
lot 19, a distance of.15.00 feet to the eztension of the southerly right-of-way of SW Sunrise Lane; thence N
89° 49' 00" W, along said southerly, right-of-way, a distance of 251.37 feet to the northwest comer of lot 18
Bull Mountain Estates; thence N 00° 25' 58" E, a distance of 15.00 feet to the northwest comer of Bull
Mountain Estates; thence N 89° 49' 00" W, along southerly right-of-way of SW Sunrise Lane, a distance of
941.78 feet to the westetly right of way of SW Sunrise Laue; thence N 00° 15' 17" E, along said westerly
right-of-way, a distance of 109.57 feet; theace N 00° 35' 17" E, along said westerly right-of-wap, a distauce
of 175.45 feet; thence N 89° 47' 37" W a distance of 310.04 feet; thence S 00° 31' 09" W a distance of
130.19 feet; thence N 89° 49' 00" W a distance of 284.88 feet; thence S 00° 47' 38" W a distance of 155.00
feet; thence N 89° 49' 00" W a distance of 135.00.feet; thence N 00° 47' 38" E a distance of 155.00 feet;
thence N 89° 49' 00" W a distance of 300.00 feet to the easterly line of Stanhutst; thence N 00° 47' 29" E, along said easterly line, a distance of 510.55 feet to the'point of beginning.
Containing 35.78 acres.
pNNEXATION CERTIFIED R E G I S T E R E D
. PROFESSION AI
BY lAPlD StJRVEYOR
OC 0 2 2006
WASHINGrtON COUNTY A& T o r, e c o y
CARTOGRAPHY '"'y 'B. I980
10HN R. HADLEY
1894
EXCEPTING
A tract of land situated in the Section 5, Township 2 South Range 1 West Willamette Meridian descdbed as
follows:
Commencing at the Northeast Comer of Stanhurst; thence N 00° 47'29" E a distaace of 262.71 feet; thence
S 89° 10' 59" E a distance of 624.11 feet; thence S 01° 05' 50" W 10.03 feet; thence N 88° 41' 59" E a
distance of 217.00 feet to The True Point of Beginning; thence S 05° 00' 48" E a distance of 227.46 feer
thence S 03° 07' 52" W a distance of 115.66 feet; theace S 89° 49' 00" E a distance of 181.95 feet; to the
westerly right of way of SW Sunrise Lane; thence N 04° 12' 11" E, along the westetly right-of-way of SW
Sunrise Lane, a distance of 183.76 feet; thence N 14° 18' OT' W, along the westerly right-of-way of SW
Sunrise Lane, a distance of 168.15 feet; thence S 88° 41' 59" W a distance of 163.44 feet to the true point of
beginuing "
Containing 1.42 acces
ANNEXATION CERTIFIED
BY ~
OCT 0 2 2006
WASHINGTON COUNTY A & T
CARTOGRAPHY
' REG_ISTLR~D
PROF€SSIO~'!!hL
~.~►~ua svavIYOR
ytw,.• 33 8~. py94
~QHtt~. Ft:. L
tMnG4otwMaro~wlbnsl~m~ex 2~1 aedbn 5 4~.dx . ,
t30r ¢ h S ~ 2S 1 05D8
` W ~,r ;3t~ M" 5"i°~,' '.,wy., g'A4~~~`, a ~i.,. Q ~ .
~ ! ttl Z ~ Kai 3is ~~a"6 {A YU 4 "efaer{..: e ~ ro~~'N. "r-r r~41~r J1~ - k 4! .'£F~ st:,~~ z L ~ ik
(CR.2873) tl > ~ SW ; ~NINTERGREEN .':~'hw ~ c`~;'~r~~ er~~*~ ~t 2 ~ ;in~ 2 ~ ,
, ~ ~oo ~ Q ` • - : SW MAYVIEW WAY ~ Q A Q r ~
h. ~ ! • _
• G10D ffi00 2100 E400 700 ~ 16 •e- ¢
_ !f 2~ 2E M
4=0;" 25. '`e~
p,,, 2m
` n
y s . 9 " eooo ,ooo ,eoo mo ~ ~
~ • ~ : ~
~9' ~ . ~ i0~r` t~`lt ` tt 2~ t0 ~Y 66pp ~700 2lOO J~ ~
~ s • :e ~ soao ! n t~ ; `
v . ,t ~2 f y •-S'~ . ~ ~ ' ~ IOOO~t V~ ~ we~ wm r.~ nm ' 21 ~e °°a" ~tOD t20p , ~ ' ~ ~ j ~
4,t°° f uao ~o . _ - ~ «
n
SW ~
m~
E ~ u a Y V DRIVE
. . • ~ t700 1r00 t600 / ~ '
~14 !C41
WASHINOTON COUNTY ORE00!
~ MN1146E114EECTION06T28R1WW.M
r e~ CV fCAt11' - 100'
:a
e100 a°°°
, b
YARROW • ueK z t M ~
WAY *e. :s H ~ a
u
xr , .
300 NG FOR ADDItIONAL MAP9 VIS? OUR WBBSITE A7
51-78
! WAY ` ,
NwwsowuhlnpAOnorua
! K R„ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1'. .~,V. 1 . ~ ~ • . ~d n 1 : .f4+.~¢ 7 A
~ C ~ V 4 +.A~S A . ~ SL•~r ~ 5' ~ i~E C f ~~i' Fm ~F . ' ~ } 1,+ .
is~'`3,~y~~,frr:~~~ ~ , • ~.~h~S~`~ ~ry i ~r 100 h ~~s ~ t ~ ;:.-.-,v. tic-,n-. . _ ~•:!d ~.n~e ~ E~ke y r~ M~~ ~ ~ ~i;ru ~v. t..
w
'~-x " ~ i ~ ~ ~ r " ~
m
~ ~ ,u O ",f"~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~~~y~~~Fx~ ~ canwe.e nme r•«: 2e105ne
h s
= r`~ ~ Z ~r~ t t~+' s tn~~ v"~r a~mamo.woo.em,
ANNEXATION CERTIflEO
400 9V~
j ~ ,''t~ ` ;~,y aa^ + ; t „ ~.Mr~~a~ y ` ,b+• ~
0T 0 E 2006
R WASHINOTON COUNTY A 6 T
CARTOOFAPHY
2861)
ZF
„J- S
PqLpOT DATE: MeY 23, 2002
~ 5~~. ~ 1O a a~ . r C~~k~ ~ i ga' ~~7 ~'"•t~~n ~~'~~"'t~~ ~ fOONL SE0 E A ES
8R
p auwrrtp~prb0aun0Na PYwclmm
.~~4r '~1
S r. 2'7...C'~ b ~ d~:~ r 4,i ¢~,~u{ "L±~.3+ -~.?'J 7",. y 1r+WiM' 11 a frSY lk } ~g Y,'w 'f..:,k•
*r~~`rx~ r :
2S 1 05DC 2S 1 05DC
•.~o q ,
nple ~ ;
~N^ ;•~M~•
9 - -
~
'•}I~{
,OIRPO'.
•t~yy~~ ~i
`
•mpp~
W
tl' "
D x
zn
. . . •
' T ~
. . r ~
m
~ ♦ ~ - .
1
, . ,
~
.
n . . . . • ' . '
. .
. . ' . : . r. • :•tMT1<~ .
.
~^dON.' Ni't
` . . . . . .
r ,
W
1 AY
.
. . . . .
,
• •
,
- -
~ .
~
s
's
- M'
~
.
•
~
.
, . .
. • - '
. .
.
.
.
.
. . .
m.~•
~
qp . ,
s
~ F~ B . .
. .
. .
g . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . .
~
~@o.' • i a ~,bn:..,
.
9 . .
. .
. . ;
.
•JM . . . . 'i»k..~c '~e'w•',
.
2, . ~ t ~ `~p1i•.
.
W . . .
~ .
~
. .
} . .
. . . : ~ . . . . . _ . . . " a
. . . .
, . . . .
~ ~ < . r
u k''
. . , . . . .
. . _ ,
~J.
. . . . . • ~
. . ~o ^Is~7[a
~iTM i y 2N AC'.
; .
.
. . . . . t
, •
. . , . ~
. .
~ .
.
. .
.
.
,
_ . , . _
. .
.
.
~ , . ~ .
. . : . . . .
. . .
, . . . . . . . '.fhl •
. . . . . , ~ Ws~M . ~ ~ ed~ : g ~c
. . .
. WASHINaTON COUNTY OREQON
,:'g
sw, /a se,
..'b . rv /4 SECTION 06 T28 Rt W W.M.
. , m' . ~ ~i_ • . . ' . . . SCALE 1' 100'
:%3e.'.Jt°
300 ,i! `~t •.q°, a:~tb>, r~~i~'%is<
. 'Y•. . am~c ~ ~a~ - ~ ..~t~.e>~.. • y'
~
23-78
loo
tOt
,~.,.K
Nqan'..' ' ,.umo,. :j:', . I'; ~+S• :<4~t,%J~ >O;;
~uo . 1Ei'.°'. . •.1' $',°t°~'. ~,'°m"' ~ ~E Ta'e' ' r~ - ~ ' ~ • ~ ~
~ ' a~ , \ ~I¢ , ~ ' : . . „ . . ; , . . ,
`4~•~~..~ 3f . ~ . , . . g~ . AiAt ,
. It Iti~~a_. "•T ORIOwwvcow~tAinpAD01lR~!b6!►6AT
. . , ~ <..:-'.,0~
' innaeer fONAD
.
- - -
__L_ n n'_ '
- - - -
•'gp'~'
~ `•'qi'°•°x~ ` ~~g~`
192
'
.M
, . cqNF~ ~ . ;
(C:R 2538, ~ ~ ~ ~;.m• r~.
)
~
1'~ t'!~ ~ .
.
•yiam'' ~ t,' ~rJio~•'~,
:18 • S f .
i:~ ~ !6: ~
~ `:iC:> :~G.::-,
t. ~ 73~10~°-°• ~ ~ eoo
.,i ✓i9r, .}b, ..~j• ~ n~e ~ ai .
r ~ d ` f~ 7:•:~Kii,~ia. ~
. .
~ .
.
, ~ ,
.
;
• , , ~
- - - "".n,: - -r-~::~; : ~ k►pAOn
.
. . . , .
. , •
,
' - _ . .Kru.Nn ~..~~`•.f~ CencNledTanbroFOr: 28f06DC
. . .
•`ria].'•; ~ `x...r,z. ~w.~..a"'. 'x ~t:~ t0o.
y,~ .n..'. _ ANNEI(ATION CBRTIFIED
,.Y•~ t•.fiiwi. ',if ".u~c. ~;e ,~lC
~ E00 BY
•,ieY~G~ p..
7 ~ itf
~ AC
. e'` t.'' ':ti: h OCT 0 2 2006
.i :'t>~" `•1`.
t
,'y,, ~ ~ ~ WASHINOTONCOUNTYAdT
CARTOORAPHY
o. ~ ,S~ tti•.'a'~,,%'''r~~ ~'ii~cowiv+
\ 2!: .;r y~~ ep . . ' ' ; A$ ffi essP49 eP1 9
ev ?
.
.i \GQ`~~ . ~g'~ Q I ~ ~
Z ' .
: • W
' Qv > PLOTDATE:SeptemberOb.2008
FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES
ONLY N~T RELy ON
~ , , .
FORpSTHER USE
.e~
; , 't/'.~ ~ •f • . ammr.a..w.nnn+rrama~,mNebt.ewmoa
- ' .,b'.,.' vmr0^~PMeanOsYlWUa/m+udarqrwa~wn/n
" ~reW~~ . ,.~i f;:. .
r / btlMnwfamNlMO~mtlht
. 6 ~ i~~.^^, ,h•
' .s
. .:.r~~ . .
" .!Rg i~j•~" . .
2S 1 05DC 2S 1 05DC
D 2S 1 05DD
2e;c-afr~ilp,` `Z'~° `s~~t+~a Y~u~~~~i'z~aSr~e~W
~'E~ a. ,..,:.v ~ ~~.l.rn.~ ~ i - i C ~ CCr`_ 40 r:r_ ''a, s•i~I'i' n„':
SW - KLI~ PSAN
~ ~ ~
'J'8"' 'j4 r. Tr5 . . . ' . _ %'.r ' ~r}, s*~4~.r1 I.HNE! ~f t* z~a 1'
'iY' 4 rs
7ip7p .~er
o rf I~;7 x~ z,a~.rs n~
1► `7 . ' . ?,?~l,+ r 7~
~ ~`G.i". s~ ~ 3,~ ~S,_'tcH r: Z' - I nr r 9 SB00 dTOO -,o
U ~ ~!?!I~ 1 yt^~ !t~ n
7{6 6M Z tr~'
qt,~~ ~t I °'w ~ J900 § ~ C T+t S Y ~YATL 5rx.,..~ ) 1~ ■ 12 1 .~^Ft1~
i 8700 T
g i y y ~11Nf 11~N ~ ~
N t ~ 1~.'~ rA
8900 U
u~
n tu~
1 O
0106D
Q Q
201 6600 8 rom ror i-V+s C3- ~~t ~
~.u.c a1 Q 1 wa --i.t~l e7F
'~-w~" 4i~00 4s."k.r".a~5
1_7 ~ ~~~<<~~
It aor~ j~ hf , att
u [st a1. p N 1~~'~.'~,l . y rnm ~ -t`5~ ~ `s'rv Js _
jr''~' a, skS.t~tr's 4,9
~ ~ reop ~
bl J ~tpr
's+ ~'V1 L'~„1 f~ J Yfp ~ &00 TMCi11• k nj
.vAIAC....,.
ipn }FiT~£+K \ 1'
>~i,~~l,a~.~r¢"` 1ust;, { y,..,.~. ~LSx-:~••-_--~_..,.-,>.~.. t ,"~'~-~~"a~ WASHINGTONCOUNTYORE(30!
- tI,q awo SE114 SE714 BECTION OB T28 N7 W W.M.
X~_ ~ Y 10 1' - 100'
EGIE
144 _
$
i 8` +y'Fr!a~ r f :J iM/iC ona - y Ll s~y x.f J.t
T~ _c It}xx ~.,T~j~ ~t azoo- ~ i io i 82°°
~ 1 I 72
mm '°m Mw . 'c . 7. . .
~ Z °
' ~ ` l • ' 'G n z, 4 q' s ~ R' ~
~ , t A Sn Y r w~ 0100 C.)9 aD~ 7t00
37 +.n
.sro 1e 17 te
~
~
4°u i.~ac i.i + ~ tp} 20 $t r42 ~
i~
t L•~"c eooo 6SW SEAVIEW IANEh ~'`r 90 ;29 YE 47 18 7E _
a`+ 7" t
23 73 472~ ~ ~
34
w u.s~N 9
} . .i ~ 1!W 2900 '
5700 ' 2s tl ♦ ~ . ~ , FOR A00lfIONAL MAVS YIYR WA WE9811F A
23 ~m• ~.m T. www co woaNn(ryw or ut
i 17~~ 3{ i ~ ~H il 4
2700 5~ ~ 26~ ~ tl ~ ' .t ~ . AB ~F
u : ^
~ c ~ ~ asa 4 te ~
1 ~ ~
~t x' { 4[a~ L.~~ I T • ~ saoo
~ x :ca~wab .p. wK u~.c ~t a3 BO 90 F AC Ay ~
a e a'r~4 5 .w~•e ~ t iem ~ tr +~.t.~, ~y ..'i..
~ }1400 G 6too
Epl,
~ 4 '~4 27 t a6ooj R<1
~ M■~ ~ ~ ry ~t.. ~~C s ~ X f3.: t ~ i : p, . .
W
y. . r o . ~ l 0 ,
700 - -
y~, N~c tsoo 2~ 1¢00 ~49 CulOqppTWobFar:48706DD
f .MnC ' I.O~nt Y100 101J7oiR~.a~.
s°n~ r ~~'Ntl ~pAO ANNEXATION CER IFIEO
; ~ .r n ~ rw.aew ~ t F ~ i4~ .l^yQ~. 8
/ ~ W wooL 1700 ~ 2701 i ~ a.l~ :aVc'
t
t y a 23_78 ~.u~c 73 IQ ~ > tG OCT 0 E 2006
~f WASHINaTON COUNTY A 8 T
a e- ;e x ~ ~ e R ~~Q ~'.,~,~gg~ h~' CARTOGRAPHY
a.7.•c „uo
xsu.ua
i300
Zey ~~.Ws'
~ „ 8 z o sy
` ~ PLOT DATE: Febtuery 23, 2008
23_73
h`~h M.~ FOtA1E~Ea
A
> ~ .arc ~i I ~ i~ ~000 ~ ~ i ~ "'uO0• 'r ~yj : WvwrYr~MM~rrOwrd~r~earar
I f200 pr~wb~~aN'~tlM'uofltlcrM~
{ ; I ( p ai~ i i ~ i 23DO 24m L y-. 1 ~ awnfPiP1'a~ar~ra ~m~tM W~
k;~
!A r.
w91au . i
z.. C.~. ~ I V
z
0
m OEOONAPXIC INlORMATION BYOTEM
V
ZCA2006-00002
-
Cach Creek Area
x
W s r~
Annexation
8
0
F ~a
~ 7
PROPOSED
ANNEXATION BE FBEND0.0
AREA ~
. Ti,.ro Area Ma,
City of Tigard City Limits
Proposed Annexation Area
Sunrise Lan . A
)1:014 Pt FE7
N
C,r
~
Inkrmation on Ws map b tor penerol IocaUon any and
Moutd bo-verifie0 wlfh Ne Development Servlces Diviaion.
13125 SW Hetl Blvd
TlparC, OR 97223
~ (503) 879-4177
http•J/www.ei.tlpaM.ot. u'
r.......~.......e... . Plot date: Oct 6. 2006: C:UnaaicUAAGIC03.APR
• . ~ ~ EXHIBIT'6,
' Agenda Item:
He ' Date: Se tember 26 2006 Time: 7:30 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
4
cITY coulvcYZ =
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
120 DAYS = N /A
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: CACH CREEK AREA A1'~TNEXATION
CASE NOS: Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2006-00002
ArPLIC'.Av't'I
COORDINATOR City of T~~ atd OWNER: Citp of Ti.gatd
(Multiple ContacG geth St Amand ContacC Dennis Koellermeier
applicants): 13125 SW Hall Btvd. 13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223 T"igaid, OR 97223
OWNER T~~ ard Water District OWNER Jon Dyer
PO Box 23000 PO Box 848
Tigatd, OR 97223 Lake Oswego, OR 97304
OWNER Sun Ridge Buildess, Inc./
Bzentwood Homes
Contact John Noffz
15170 SW Finis Lane
'I"igacd, OR 97224
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting annexation of-elve-(-~ eleven (11) pazcels and the
Sunrise Lane right-of-way containing 4~ a total of 40.93 actes into the City of
Tigard.
LOCATION: Abu" and west of Sunrise Lane, and abutting and north of SW Bull Mountain
Road, including right-of-way on SW Sunnse Lane; Washingcon County Tax
Assessor's Map No. (W CIZvI} 2S105DB, Taic Lots 6100, 6200 & 400; WCTM
2S108AB, Tax Lots 1200 & 1201; WCTM 2S105DC, Tax Lots 100, 201, 300 & 400;
and WCTM 2S105DD, Tax Lots 200 & 300.
CURRENT
ZONING
DESIGNATION: R-6 District aesidential G Units Per Acre). The purpose of the Washington County
R-6 District is to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for areas
designa.ted for residential development at no more than six (6) units per acre and no
less than five (5) units per acre, except as specified by Section 300-2 or Section 303-6.
The intent of the R-6 District is to provide the opportuniry for more flexibility in
development than is allowed in the R-S District.
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXr1TiON
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 1 OF 12
• } ~
- EQUIVALENT
CITY ZONING
DESIGNATION: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The City of Tigatd R-7 zoning disuict 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 petmitted outaght. Some civic and
institutional uses are also pernutted conditionally.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: ORS Chapter 222, Metro Code Chapter 3.09, Comp rehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10,
Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390.
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
~ s ,~s~: , - - ;
• ~t~ " ~ - fi~ ~ ~ ~ ~
, Y.~ 's't i.` _
' 3~,zde •
~ • ~ . ~ . ~ y a. ~ ~
- ....i 'r:• „t"' x ,..t. 'ex'„ .::f+ s >;F3 1::v:.R4'Lr3rt,
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site Information•
The subject site is located along the westem boundary of the City of Tigard; the majority of Sunrise Lane
is contiguous to the City limits. The site is part of unincorporated Bull Mountain and the City of Tigard's
Urban Service Area.
The subject site is predominandy in public ownership and is either currendy used fot public purposes or
will be in the future- The City intends to use the publiciy owned land for the purposes of a reservoir and
parkland. The Menlot Resezvoit provides public water storage faciiities for the Tigard Water Distact The
subject site also includes land banked for the Cache Creek Natural Area and futute public water facilities:
The City of Tigard IYlater Di.rtribution Sy.rtem Hydraulic Study (May 2000) shows a future 550'-elevation-zone
Reservoir #1 located on City-owned land adjacent to Suntise Lane.
The subject site also includes residential land (vacant and in current use). There are fout primary structures
located on the subject site: the Menlor Resezvoir and three homes. The City approved a lot line
adjustment (MIS2006-00012) for 2S105DC, Tax Lot 100 on July Z, 2006. The two southernmost
residential patcels (2S108AB, Tax Lots 1200 and 1201) are currendy under development review; the owner
has submitted separately a land-use application for a 17-lot subdivision with a total of 30 dwelling units
(SUB2006-00003). The application was submitted to the Ciry on January 31, 2006 when the Ciry still
provided development services to the Urban Serv-ice Area as agteed in the IY/ruhington County - Tigard Urban
Se~vices Inte~governmenta! Ag~ement (terminated July 20, 2006). This application is a separate land-use decision
with its own set of review criteria and will not be addressed in this report.
The majority of the subject site contains steep slopes, defined as 25% slope or greatet. The City of Tigard
Community Development Code requires Sensitive iands pettnits for development on parcels with steep
CACH CREEK A1tEA ANNFXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 2 OF 12
slopes. There are two wetlands designated as Tide 3 wetlands in the subject area. Goal 5 and Bull
Mountain Cotnmunity Plan natural resources exist on a majority or portions of the subject tax lots,
protection Eor which will be considered if or when any of the proposed territory develops.
SECTI4N IV APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS
State: ORS Chapter 222
RegionaL• Metro Code Chapter 3.09
City: Comprehensive Pla.n Polides 2 and 10, Community Development Code Chapters 1$.320 and 18390.
A CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE aITL.E 18)
Staff has deternuied that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community
Development Code based on the following findings:
1 Chapter 18 320 020• Approval Process and Standards.
B. Approval Criteria. The decision to apptove, approve with modification, oc deny an application to annex
property to the City shall be based on the following criteria:
1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service
for the proposed annexation area; and
The Ciry of Tigard Comprehensive Plan's Urbanization Chaptet (Poliry 10.1.1) defines setvices as
water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire ptotection. Each secvice is addcessed below.
Poliry 10.1.1 furthei defines capacitp as "adequate capacity, oi such services to be made available,"
to serve the parcel "if developed to the most intense use allowed," and "w11 not significandy
teduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land in the City of Tigatd."
The proposed annexation territory is cusrendy zoned R-6, a Washington Countp residential zone
designated for residential development at no mote than sis (6) units per acre and no iess than five
(S) units per acre. With annexation, the subject site's zoning would change to R-7 per Table 320.1
(Tide 18). This eguivalent city zoning provides for medium-density, single-familp zesidential with a
minimum residential lot size of 5,000 square feet
As noted earlier, the subject site's current and planned uses are mosdy public: water provision and
a uatural atea. The property deeds for certain pazcels limit the City to these two uses. If the
remairung 9.14 residential acres were developed to theic designated capaciry of 7 units per gross
acre, without allowance for the sensitive lands present, the sites could accommodate approxitnately
63 units total. T'his gross calculation breaks down as follows: two northeast parcels (Dyer), 21
units; two southwest parcels (Brentwood), 42 units.
These figutes were used for City department evaluations of Poliry 10.1.1 of the available services.
When these sites develop, the applicant will be required to connect to public service fatilities. The
land-use review process will identify specific service provisions and require additional facilities or
upgrades as appropriate, as well as consider the sensitive lands present.
Water - City of Tigard Public Wotks. The City of Tigard's water system has the capaciry to
provide the minimum State of Otegon water service requirements fot the ptoposed annexation,
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATTON
ZCA2406-00002 PAGE 3 OF 12
. ~ ~
' according to Public Works Dept Project Engineet Rob Murchison. Murchison's review concluded
that the patcels developed to xhe most intense use allowed will not significantly reduce the level of
services available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. Attachment A
includes Murchison's Aug. 16, 2006, memo and a map of water serviceability to the annexation
atea that idenrifies area water lines. Murchison's memo also notes that rhe ptoposed development
(Brentwood) may require upsizing and a 8" connection to the existing system; again, that
application is a separate land-use decision with its own set of review criteria and will not be
addtessed in this report The laud-use review process will identify specific service provisions and
req.uire additional fac.ilities or upgrades as appropriate based on the specific development proposal.
Tigard City Engineet Gus Duenas further confirms that the City has adequate capacity
("Memorandum," Attachment B) and states that "the City has the abiIity and capaciry to determine
what specific improvements may be needed and the ability and capacity to provide service through
its exisring system and any additional infrasttucture that will be required when development
occurs."
Sewer - Clean Water Services/City of Tigard. Tigard Ciry Engineer Gus Duenas
("Memorandum," Attachment B) reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:
"Sanitary sewer setvice is provided at the retail level by the City and at the wholesale level by Clean
Water Services (CWS). As to the capacitp of the City's system, the City is capable of providing
retail level sewer service without significant reduction in the level of services provided to
developed and undeveloped properties in the City. As with the water spstem, some local lines will
be required to be provided by the developer at the time of the development The City is prepared
to accept, operate and maintain public sewets constructed within the annexed area- Sewer service
can be extended Erom CWS facilities in Menlor Lane and 154~' Avenue located north of the site.
The City is capable of determining what additional faciliries will be required and of administexing
all portions of the retail sanitaty sewer system, both existing and future additions in the area to be
annexed, without significant reduction in the level of services provided to properties in the City."
Drainage - Clean Water Services/City of Tigard. Tigard City Engineer Gus Duenas
("Memorandum," Attachment B) reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:
"Storm drainage service, like sanitary sewer service, is provided joindy by the City and CWS. Site
specific dtainage facilities will be tequired at the time of development and will be developed and
constructed in accordance with City standards. The retail system as the capacity to provide
adequate storrn drainage without significant reduction in the level of services provided to
developed and undeveloped properties in the City."
Streets - City of Tigard Capital Construction & Transportation Divisiori The City's
Transportation System Plan (TSP) standards apply. The proposed annezcation territory is located
adjacent to Sunrise Lane, which is designated a neighborhood route in the City's Transportation
System Plan (TSP). In addition, the southernmost portion of the proposed annexation tertitory
(WCTM 2S108AB01201) fronts direcdy on SW Bull Mountain Road, which the Ciry's TSP
designates as a collector_ Additional roads to serve the proposed annexation territory include 150d'
Avenue, Roshak Road, 154`h Avenue, and other surrounding stteets. Tigard City Engineer Gus
Duenas ("Memorandum," Attachment B) reviewed the annexation proposal and concluded that
some improvements to these streets may be required as part of the development of the annexed
area, inclnding extension of existing streets into the area. However, Duenas determiued that the
CACH CREEK dREA r1NNEY-kTION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 4 OF 12
c ' ~ ~ • •
- City can provide services to this site, and "doing so wiii not significandy reduce the level of
serv-ices to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard."
Police - City of Tigard Police Department. The City o£ Tigard's Police Department has
reviewed the annexation proposal and stated that the proposed annexation would not impede
current levels of service to existing developed and undeveioped areas in the City of Tigard. If the
azea is annexed, T'igard Police can provide adequate ser.vices to the proposed area. (Attachment C).
Fire - Tuaiatin Valley Fire and Rescue ('TVF&R). Tualatin Vallep Fire and Rescue (TVF&R)
already serves the proposed annexation territory. Additionally, TVF&R reviews all subdivision
development proposals and annexation proposals for the City of Tigard and would pxovide
additional comments at that rime.
Based gpon this review, staff finds that all public services (as defined by the Cornpzehensive Planl
are available to the proposed annexation territory and all public services have sufficient capacim to
provide servtce to the nroposed annexation temtorv.
2. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been
satisfied.
Three Comprehensive Plan policies applp to proposed annexation: 2.1.1, 10.1_1., and 10.1.2. Staff
has determined that the proposal has satisfied the applicable Comptehensive Plan policies based
on the following findings:
PolicX 2.1.1: Citizen Involvement. The Ciry shall maintaia an ongoing citizen involvement
program and shall assure that cirizens will be provided an opportunity to be invobed in all phases
of the planning process.
The City maintains an ongoing citizen involvement progxam_ To assure citizens will be provided an
opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process, the Ciry provides notice for Type
N land-use applications. The City posted, mailed and published notice of the public heating as
follows. The City posted the hearing notice at four public places on August 11, 2006: Tigard
Library, Tigaxd City Ha11, Tigard Permit Center,. and in the general vicinity of the proposed
territory on SW Sunrise Lane and on SW Bull Mountain Road near SW Roshak Road The City
published notice of the hearing iti The Tigard Tualatin Shenvood Time.r for two successive weeks
(Septembet 7, 2006 and September 14, 2006) priox to the September 26, 2006, public hearing. The
City also mailed notice to all interested parties and surrounding ptoperty owners within 500 feet on
August 7, 2006. In addition, the City maintains a list of intetested parties organized by geagraphy.
Notice was mailed to intetested parties in the West area on August 7, 2006, which includes fortner
Citizen Involvement Team contacts and CPO 4B, the citizen participation organization fot the
area. Sta£f finds that this 12olicy is met.
Policy 10.1.1: Urbanization. Ptior to the annexation of land to the City of Tigard,
a) the City shall ceview each of the following setvices as to adequate capacity, ot 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 devebped and undeveloped land within the
City of Tigatd: 1. Water; 2. Sewer, 3. Drainage; 4. Streets; 5. Police; and 6. Fire Ptotection.
As addressed under 18.320.020 above, adequate service is available to the proposed annexation
CACH CRF.EK AREA ANNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 5 OF 12
t • r ~ ~
• temtory. Upon annexation, the proposed territory will be zoned R-7, a medium-density single-
fatnily residential zone with a minimum xesidential lot size of 5,000 square feet. The privately
owned properties have an estimated maximum density of 63 units (not taking into account
sensitive lands).' If they develop,. the developer(s) will be xequired to connect the properties to
public service facilities, such as sewer, storm drainage and water, and provide the necessary street
improvements. Based on comments from Ciry of Tigard staff, there is adequate capacity to serve
the annexation area (water, sewei, dtainage, streets, police, fire protection) if developed to the most
intense use allowed, .and it will not significandy reduce the level of services available to developed
and undeveloped land within the Ciry of Tigard.
The City of Tigard department of Public Works has reviewed the annexation proposal and states
that the City's water system can provide the mi.,;murri State of Oregon water sezvice requitements
for tlie proposed territory based on the maxirnum density permitted. Public Works states that
water is available in quantity and quality and has not indicated that there would be a reduction in its
capacity to provide wates to the proposed annexation territory or reduce the level of service to tlie
entite City. The Police Department reviewed the proposal and has no objections. The
Engineering Deparnnent reviewed Ehe proposal and has no objections. The Engineering
Deparanent confiimed that sewer service, storm drainage and street access are available to the site.
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R), the current provider to the proposed territory, did not
raise any objections. Staff concludes that there is adequate capacity to serve the 12roposed territM
(water, sewer, drainage streets nolice„fire 12rotection) if developed to the most intense use
allowed, and will not sig!jificantly reduce the level of services available to developed and
undeveloped land within the City of Tigard.
b} If required by an adopted capital improvements program otdinance, the applicant shall sign and
record with Washington County a nonremonstrance agreement regatding the following: 1. The
fotmarion of a local improvement district (L.I.D.) for any of the folloanng services that.could be
provided through such a districL The extension or imptovement of the following: a) Water, b)
Sewer, c) Drainage, and d) Stteets. 2. The formation of a special district for any of the above
services ot the inclusion of the propetty into a special service district for any of the above services.
This criterion does not applp: No capital imptovements program requites a nonremonstrance
agreement for this area.. Some urban seivices ate already available foL the proposed annexation
territory; others are available nearbp and would tequite connections from the proposed annexation
area. However, these public facility requirements will be assigned as part of any subdivision review
when an application is submitted.
c) The City shall provide utban services to areas within the Tigard Urban Planning Area or within
ihe Urban Growth Boundary upon anuexation-
The Tigatd Urban Planning Area (as defined in the Washington County - Tzgard Urban PlanningAna
Agreement (UPAA Quly 2006); see Attachtnent D of application submittal) includes the proposed
annexation territory_ The City is the designated urban services provider for the services defined in
the Tigard Urban Senrice Agreement (I'[ISA) (2002) and subsequent operating agreements: police;
parks, tecreation and ojien space; roads and streets; sanitary sewer and storm water (through an
opetating agreement with Clean Watet Services); and water service. Upon annexatioq those
services will be pxovided according to the City's current policies. Staff finds that this policv is met
I Maximum densiry was calculated using formula provided in Code Chapter 18.715.
CACH CREEK AREAANNEXAT'I4N
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 6 OF 12
• Policy 10.1.2: Urbanization. Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based
on findings with respect to the following. a) The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or
"island" of unincorpotated tenitory; or, b) The annexation will not create an inegular boundary
that makes it difficult foc the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is
within or outside the City; c) The Police Department has commented upon the annexation; d) the
land is located within the Tigacd Area of Interest and is cantiguous to the City boundacy; e) The
annexation can be accommodated by the services listed. in 10.1.1(a).
a) The proposed annexation does not eliminate an existing pocket or island of wuncorpotated
territory. It does remove portions of an existing pocket ("Dyer" property) and would
incorporate City-owned land and publicly owned land that provides Tigard residents with
public services.
b) As stated earlier, only 9.14 acres of the proposed annexation area are in private ownexship and
zoned for residential development. The remainuig acxeage consists of land in public ownership
for public services, including land for the public water system and a natural area, which require
limited services. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposed annexation
and has no objections. The depamnent stated (Attachment C) that "the proposed boundary for
the annexation does not appeaz to .present any obstacles for emergenry response by the Police
Department." It should also be noted here that the owners of three adjacent properties on
Sunrise Lane have expressed the desire to join this proposed annexation (15180,14625, and
151lO.SW Sunrise Lane); the annexation of those additionai properties would eliminate
additional pockets and create a moie regular boundary. However, the current proposal does
not include those properties.
c) As shown in B. above, the Gity of Tigard Police Department has commented on the
annexation.
d) T'he UPAA (july 2006) includes the proposed annexation territory within Tigard's Area of
Interest The ptoposed annexation territory is contiguous to the Ciry along the site's east
boundary and Sunrise Lane.
e) Lasdy, as section 10.1.1.(a) demonstrated, t]ie annexation can be accommodated by the
following services: water, sewer, drainage; streers; police; and fire protection.
Therefote staEf finds that the proposed annexation meets Policy 10_1.2.
Policy 10.1.3: Utbanization. Upon annexation of land into the City which cames a Washington
County zoning designation, the City of Tigatd shall assign the City of Tigatd zoning district
designation which most closety conforms to the county zoning designation.
Chapter 18320.020 C of the Community Development Code provides specifics on this
conversion.
The pxoposed annexation temtory's Washington Counry designation is R-6. Table 320.1
summarizes the convetsion of the County's plan and zoning designations; R-6 Counry zoning
converts to the City's R-7 zoning. As this is a Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) application, upon
approval and execution of the proposed annexation, the territory will assume R-7 zoning to
conform with the table below. Additionally, the City's Comprehensive Plan designation for
medium-density xesidential will be applied to this area.
CACH CREEK AREr1 ANNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 7 OF 12
TABLE 320.1
CO:VVERSION TABLE FOR COLIITY A-ND CiTY PLAN AND ZONING DESIGN-ATIODIS
\VasLfagtoa Conuty Land iTse Citp of Tigard Zoning City of Itigard
DishfctslPtan Designatioa Plan Aesignatio¢
R-S Res_ 5 uniWacre R-4_5 SFR 7.500 sq. ft_ Low density 1-5 vnitsiacre
R-6 Res. 6 uaitsJacm R-7 SFR 5,000 sq_ ft_ Med density 6-12 umWacre
R-9 Res. 9 unitsiacre R-i 2 Matti-family 12 imits'acre Med. density6-12 units/acre
R-t' Res. 12 unitslacre R-12 MuNi-family 12 imits(acre Med. density 6-12 unitsraae
R- 15 Res. 15 uaiu/acrn R-ZS Multi-family 25 imits.'acre Medium-High density 13-25
uaiWaae R-24 Res. 24 awtsJacres R-.'.S Multi-family 25 anits/acre Medium-High deasity 13-25
uaitslaae
Office Commercial C-P Commercial Professional CP Cammercial Professional
NC Pieighborhood Commercial CN TJeia.~borhnod Commercial C;V Neighbothood Commercial
CBD Commercial Biuuiess CBD Commercial Bwifless CBD Comme.rcial Business
DisOrict Dishict Dishnct
GC General Commercial CG General Commexrial CG Generat Commercial
1N1D Industrial I-L LiSht Industrial Light 7ndnstxiale
Chanter 18.320A20 C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations.
The comprehensive plan designation and the zomng designation placed on the property shall be the Ciry'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 concutrently with the
annexation. In the case of land which cames County designations, the City shall convett the County's
comprehensive plan map and zoniag designations to the City designations which are the most similar. A
zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/ot zoning map
designation other than the exisdng designarions. (See Chaptet 18.380). A request for a zone change can be
processed concurrentty with an annexadon application or after the annexation has been apptoved.
As the previous section demonstrated, the City of Tigatd R-7 zonin,g district is the most similar to
Washington County's R-6 zoning district. The proposed territory is currendp R-6 and will automaticallp
become R-7 upon annexation. This zone conversion wili occur concurrently with the annexation process.
Thete have been no tequests for zoning other than R-7.
City of Tigacd Community Development Code
2 Chapter 18.390.060: Type IV Procedure
Annexations are processed by means of a Type N procedure, as govemed by Chapter 18.390 of the
Communiry Development Code (Tide 2$) using standards of approval contained in 18.390_020(B), which
were addtessed in the previous section. Chapter 18.390 requires Ciry Council to hold a heating on an
annexation. It also zequires the Ciry to provide notice at least 10 days prior to the heating by ma.ii and to
publish newspaper notice; the City mailed notice on August 7, 2006, and published public notice in The
Tigard Tualatin Shenvood Times for two successive weeks (September 7, 2006, and September 14, 2006,) ptior
ta the September 26, 2006, public hearing.
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEk1TTON
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 8 OF 12
Additionaily, Chapter 18.390.060 sets forth five decision-maling considerations for a Type IV decision:
1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197;
The City's Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged by the iand Conservation and Development
Commission to be in compliance with state planning goals. As reviewed above, the annexation proposal
meets the existi.ng Comprehensive Plan policies and therefote is in compliance with state planning goals.
2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable;
ORS 222:
State law {ORS 222120(4)(b), ORS 222.125, ORS 222.170(1) and (2)) allows for a city to annex contiguous
tertitory when ownets af land in the proposed territory to be annexed submit a petition to the legislative body
of the city. ORS 222.120 requires the city to hold a public heazing before its legislative body (Ciry Council)
and provide public notice to be pubiished once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of the
heazing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and shall cause notices of the hearing to be
posted in four public places in the ciry for a like period.
The property owners (or their tepresentatives) of ali 11 parcels have submitted signed petitions for
annexation to the Ciry. The proposed annexation tertitory is conriguous to the City along the site's east
boundary and Suntise Lane.
The Ciry published public notice in The Tigard Tualatin Sbenvood Times for two successive weeks (September
7, 2006, and September 14, 2006) prior to the September 26, 2006, public hearing and posted the hea.riug
notice at four public places on August 11, 2006: Tigard Library, Tigaxd Ciry Hall, Tigard Pemut Center,
and in the general vicuuty of the proposed territory. Staff finds that the provisions of ORS 222 have been
met.
3. Any applicable METRO regulations;
Chapter 3.09 of the Metso Code (Local Government Boundary Changes) includes standards to be
addressed in annexation decisions, in addition to local and state review standards. Note that the report is
available 15 days befoxe the hearing (September 11, 2406, for an September 26, 2006, hearing). Staff has
determuled that the applicable METRO regulations (IVletro Code 3 09 040(bL&(d)) have been met based
on the following findin4s: Metro 3.09.040 (b)
(b) Not later than 15 days prior to the date set foc a change decision, the approving entiry shall make
available to the public a teport ihat addtesses the criteria tn subsecrions (d) and (g) below, and that
includes at a minimum the following.
(1) The extent to which utban services ptesently are available to serve the affected territory
including any exua tetritorial extensions of setvice;
As addcessed previously in t}us report, utban seivices are available to the affected territory.
(2) A description of how the proposed boundary change complies with any urban secvice pcovider
agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065 between the affected enrity and all necessary parties;
As addressed previously in this report, the annexation ptoposal complies with all applicable
provisions of urban service provider agreements, IJPAA (2006); and T[.TSA (2002).
CACH CREEK r1REA A1VNEXATiON
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 9 OF 12
. ~ i . )
. (3) A descriprion of how the proposed boundary change is consistent with the compcehensive land
use plans, public facility plans, regional framework and functional plans, regional urban growth
goals and objectives, urban planning agreements and similat agreements of the affected entity and
of all necessary parties;
As addressed pteviously in this report, the annexation proposal complies with all applica.ble
policies of the City of Tigard Comptehensive Plan and urban seroice provider agreements (UPAA
(2006) and TUSA (2002). The proposed annexation tertitory is within the Urban Growth Boundary
and subject to the Regional Framework Plan and Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
provisions. There ate no specific applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes in the
Regional Framework Plan or the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. However, the
City's Comprehensive P1an and Development Code have been amended to comply with Metto
functional plan requirements_ By complying with the Development Code and CompLehensive
Plan, the annexarion is consistent with the Functional Plan and the Regional Framework Plan.
(4) Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the affected territory
from the legal boundary of any necessauy party; and
The proposed territory will remain within Washington Counry but will be required to be
withdrawn ftom the boundary of the Tigatd Water District, the Washington County Enhanced
Shexiffs Patcol Disttict, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington
County Street Lighting Distuct #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon
complerion of the annexation.
(5) The proposed effective date of the decision.
The public hear.ing will take place September 26, 2006. If the Council adopts findings to approve
ZCA2006-00002, the effective date of the annexation will be October 26, 2006.
Metro Code 3.09.040 (d)
(d) An approving entity's final decision on a boundary change shall include findings and conclusions
addressing the following criteria:
1. Consistency with directly applicable ptovisions in an urban service ptovidet agreement or
annexation plan adopted putsuant to ORS 195.065;
As addressed pteviously in this application, the annexation proposal complies with all applicable
provisions of urban service provider agreements (UPAA (2006) and the TUSA (2002)). The TUSA
, includes the proposed annexation territory. The agreement states that the County and City will be
supportive of annexations to the City, and the City shall endeavor to annex the Bull Mountain area
in the near to mid-term (by 2005-2007, as projected in the TUSA. The proposed annexarion is in
the Bull Mountain Area and is contiguous to city liinits. Therefore, the proposed annexation is
consistent with these agteements.
2. ConSistency with directly applicable ptovisions of urban pianning or other agreements, other
than agreements adopted putsuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a necessaty
party;
The UPAA (2006) includes the proposed annexation territory. T'he City has followed all processing
and notice requirements in the UPAA, providing Washington County with 45-day notice prior to
the public hearing. The agreement states that "so that a11 properties within the Tigard Urban
Service Area will be served by the City, the County and City will be supportive of annexations to
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATTON
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 10 OF 12
the City." The City also ptovided notice to the affected CPO (CPO 4B) per the agxeement The
annexation proposal is consistent with this agreement
3. Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility pians;
As previously stated in this report, this proposal meets all applica.ble Ciry of Tigard Comprehensive
Plan provisions. This criterion is satisfied_
4. Consistenry with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any funcrional plan;
This criterion was addressed under Metro Code 3.09.040(b). By complying with the City of Tigard
Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is consistent with the
Functional Plan and the Regional Frarnework Plan.
5. Whether the proposed change will ptomote ot not interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere cvith the provision of pubiic facilities or services
because it is consistent with the temis of the TT1SA (2002), which ensures the timelp, orderly, and
efficient extension of public facilities and urban services; it is contiguous to existing city limits and
services; and lasdy, urban services are available to the proposed annexation territory and have not
been found to sign.ificandy reduce existing service levels.
6. The territory lies within the Urban Growth Boundary; and
The proposed territory is within Metro's Urban Growth Boundary.
7. Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary cbange in question under state and
local law.
In previous sections, this report reviewed the proposal's consistency with other applicable criteria
and found it to be consistent.
(Tigard CDC 19390.060)
4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and
As demonstrated in previous sections of this xeport, the proposed annexation is consistent with, and
meets, all applicable comprehensive plan policies.
5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances.
There are no specific implementing ordinances that apply to this proposed annexarion. Chaptet 18 of the
City Code will applp to development of the property.
SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The Citp of T"igard Public Wotks, Engineering and Police Departments have reviewed the proposal and
have no ob}ections to it and have not indicated that the proposed annexation would reduce their capacity
. CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 11 OF 12
to provide services to the proposed annexation territory ox reduce the level of City services. Full
comments are provided in the attachments listed below.
Attachment A. "Memorandum," from Rob Murchison, Public Works Dept. Project Engineer
Attachment B: "Memorandum," from Gus Duenas, Engineering Division
Attachment C: E-mail from Jim WolC Tigard Police Depariment
SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the annexation proposal and has no objections, comments or
conditions.
o0 IG
DAT`E
ARED Asstant Planner
REVIEWED BY: Coffee DATE
Community Development Director
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXA'ITON
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 12 OF 12
" ADDENDUM1
MEMORANDUM "
.
TO: Mayor Dirksen, City Council
CC: Craig Prosser, Tom Coffee, Dick Bewersdorff
FROM: Emily Eng
RE: ZCA2006-00002 Cach Creek Area Annexation
DATE: October 5, 2006
This memo identifies changes to the Cach Creek Area Annexation Proposal. On September
25, 2006, applicant John Noffz of Sun Ridge Builders, withdrew the Brentwood Estates
property (Washington Counry Tax Map 2S108AB, Tax Lots 1200 and 1201), changing the
original proposal. In addition, one tax lot number (2S105DC, Tax Lot 100) has been
removed because it doesn't exist and was incorrecdy shown on the tax map. City Council
held a public hearing for the annexation on September 26, 2006 and decided to continue the
hearing on October 10, 2006 and leave the record open for additional information and
public comment. The supplemental exhibits below have been attached to this memo:
Supplemental Exhibit A: Supplemental Findings in Support of the Cach Creek Area
Annexation
Supplemental Exhibit B: Additional Information and Public Comments Submitted to
the Record
Supplemental Exhibit C: Assessed Value of Properties to be Annexed
The following changes apply to the Staff Report:
Page 1 .
• Sun Ridge Builders should be removed as an applicant and owner.
• Under proposal, "Eleven (11) parcels" should be changed to "Eight (8) parcels."
Total acreage should be changed from 40.93 acres to 35.78 acres. (At the hearing, I
estimated that the total revised acreage was 34.82, but after re-surveying the site, it is
35.78.)
• Under location, the withdrawn parcels (Washington County Tax Map 2S108AB, Tax
Lots 1200 and 1201) should be deleted. In addition, Washington County Tax Map
2S1105DC, Tax Lot 100 should be deleted. These were included as a result of a tax
map error.
• Under current zoning designation, the County designation R-15 should be added
because two of the City-owned properties are zoned R-15..
• Under equivalent zoning designation, the City designation R-25 should be added
because that is the zone that most closely refects the Counry R-15 designation.
page 2 , • Second paragraph from the bottom, the three sentences regarding the two •
Brentwood parcels should be deleted.
Page 3
~ Third paragraph from the bottom, maximum density of the privately-owned
property should be calculated based on a total of 3.03 acres instead of 9.14 acres.
Therefore, the estimated maximum residential units is approximately 21 and not 63,
not taking into account sensitive lands.
Page 4
• First paragraph, concerning Public Works' comments on water, the sentence
regarding the Brentwood parcels should be deleted.
• Last paragraph, third sentence from top should be deleted because it relates to the
Brentwood parcels. Concerning roads that serve the proposed annexation territory
in the next sentence, "Roshak Road" should be deleted because it relates to the
Brentwood parcels.
Page 6
• First paragraph, second full sentence;:the estimated density should be residentia121
units for the privately-owned properry and not 63 units.
• First paragraph, last sentence states, "Based on comments from City of Tigard staff,
there is adequate capacity to serve the annexation area (water, sewer, drainage,
streets, police, fire protection) if developed to the most intense use allowed, and it
will not significandy reduce the level of services available to developed and
undeveloped land within the City of Tigard." Ciry staff reviewed the proposal when
the estimated maxitnum densiry was 63 acres; therefore, because the maximum
density is now 21 residential units, the City's assessment of adequate capaciry
overestimates the burden of the annexarion on City services. In either case, whether
63 or 21 units, the City has adequate capacity to serve the proposed annexation
territory.
• Second paragraph from top states, "The City of Tigard department of Public Works
has reviewed the annexation proposal and states that the City's water system can
provide the minimum State of Oregon water service requirements for the proposed
territory based on the maximum density permitted." The maximum density referred
to was 63 units; however, it is now 21.
- Page 7
• In response "b," the privately owned acreage should be changed from 9.14 acres to
3.03.
• Bottom paragraph should be deleted and replaced with "Upon approval and
execution of the proposed annexation, the territory will assume zoning to conform
to the table below. In addition, the City's Comprehensive Plan designation will be
applied to this area." Page g
• Response to "C" should be deleted and replaced with "Six parcels in the proposed
temtory are currendy zoned Washington Counry R-6 and two parcels are zoned
Washington Counry R-15. Upon annexation, the six parcels will automatically
become City of Tigard R-7 and the two parcels will become City of Tigard R-25."
Page 9
Under the response to #2, "property owners of all 11 parcels" should be changed to
"property owners of all 8 parcels."
Page 10
• The response to #5 states, "The public hearing will take place September 26, 2006. If
the Council adopts findings to approve ZCA2006-00002, the effective date of the
annexation will be October 26, 2006." However, the public hearing is being
continued on October 10, 2006. If the Council adopts the ordinance approving
ZCA2006-00002, the effective date of the annexation would be November 10, 2006.
Supplemental EXHIBIT A,
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATION
1. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 26, 2006, consistent
with ORS 222.120, to consider this annexation proposal. The City allowed written
comments concerning the proposed annexation to be submitted before, during and for a
period of seven days after the hearing. The Council also received oral comments at the
hearing.
2. The notice of the hearing proposed annexation of property owned by the City of Tigard,
the Tigard Water District, the Trust for Public Land, Brentwood Homes, and Jon Dyer.
The Trust for Public Lands and Brentwood Homes have indicated that they no longer
wish their property to be included in the proposed annexation. City staff has proposed
that the annexation include only those properties owned by the City of Tigazd, the Tigard
Water District, and Jon Dyer. The Council agrees that the annexation should be and is
limited to the properties owned by the City of Tigard, the Tigard Water District, and Jon
Dyer. The legal description and a map of the properties being annexed are included in
the ordinance as Exhibits A and B.
3. The City has written consents to annexation signed by a duly authorized official of the
City of Tigard and by Jon Dyer. It also has a petition for and consent to annexation
signed by a duly authorized official of the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) that
covers the property owned by the Tigard Water District. The IWB consent reflects a vote
by the IWB to petition for and consent to the annexation. The Council finds that the
Intergovernmental Water Board has authority to act for the Tigard Water District and
other members of the IWB as to the property proposed for annexation and properly
exercised that authority in signing the petition for and consent to annexation. The record
includes a letter from King City, a member of the IWB, expressly agreeing with the
consent to annexation, and written minutes of the IWB meeting showing the City of
Durham's vote in favor of the consent and statements in support of consent by Durham's
representative. The minutes show that the Tigard Water District representative abstained
from voting and did not oppose the action of the IWB in consenting to the annexation.
No one has claimed that the IWB lacked authority to act on behalf of the Tigard Water
District.
4. Under ORS 222.170(4), property that is publicly owned is not considered when
determining the number of owners, the area of land, or assessed valuation unless the
owner of the property files a statement consenting to or opposing annexation.
Washington County has not submitted to the City a statement consenting to or opposing
the annexation, so County roads and rights-of-way that are within the azea proposed for
annexation are not considered in determining whether the City has sufficient consents.
5. The City has the written consent of all of the owners of property proposed to be included
in the annexation. There are no registered voters in the area proposed for annexation.
The City therefore may proceed with annexation without a vote in the territory to be
annexed under ORS 222.125 (consent of all the owners and at least 50 percent of voters,
1
if any), ORS 222.170(I )(consent of half the owners of half the land with half the
assessed value, and ORS 222.170(2) (consent of a majority of the electors and owners of
half the property).
6. Even if the consent for the property owned by the Tigard Water District is not counted,
the City has sufficient consents to proceed with the annexation without an election in the
territory to be annexed under both ORS 222.170(1) and 222.170(2). The property owned
by the City of Tigard and Jon Dyer totals 21.04 acres, more than half of the total net area
of 32.07 acres. The City and Mr. Dyer are two of three owners - more than half of the
owners. The total assessed value of the property owned by the City and Mr. Dyer is
$970, more than half of $970, which is the total assessed value of all the total net
property value in the area proposed for annexation. Because there are no resident voters
in the area, the number of voters does not need to be considered under ORS 222.170(2).
The City talces official notice of the assessed values for the properties as listed by
Washington County. The City notes that the market value for the Tigard Water District
property, as established by Washington County, is $1,316,700, which is less than half the
total market value of 3,582,850 of all the properties in the area to be annexed.
Findings Addressing Comments Received
7. The City received written comments from Karen and John Molloy, Lisa Hamilton-Treick,
Richard A. Franzke, Michael Orth, and Lawrence R. Derr in opposition to the opposed
annexation. The City also received inquiries from other property owners as to the
possibility of including their properties in the annexation. At the September 26, 2006,
hearing, Ms. Hamilton-Treick and Kinton Fowler testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation, and Linda Walsh offered testimony that cou}d be considered critical of the
annexation.
8. On August 8, 2006, the Washington County Board of Commissioners called an election
on the proposed incorporation of the City of Bull Mountain. The area proposed for
annexation is within the area proposed to be included within the proposed City of Bull
Mountain. The City has concluded, on advice of its City Attorney, that it cannot process
petitions for annexation received after the time the proposed incorporation was referred to
the voters. Therefore, it is including in the proposed annexation only properties for
which it received a petition for and consent to annexation prior to August 8, 2006 and is
not adding any properties to the proposed annexation territory. The City received
petitions for annexation for all properties included in the proposed annexation prior to
August 8, 2006.
Findinjzs Relating To Comments Submitted bv Lawrence R. Den
9. Lawrence R. Derr submitted written comments on October 3, 2006, on behalf of Lisa
Hamilton-Treick. Mr. Derr argues that the City cannot proceed with the annexation
because the area proposed for annexation is within the area of the proposed City of Bull
Mountain. Mr. Derr argues that the "City has taken no actions to initiate this annexation
2
that are prior in time to the annexation procedures." The City concludes that the relevant
date for an incorporation proceeding is the date that the County acts to place the matter
on the ballot. Landis v. City of Roseburg, 243 Or 44, 411 P2d 282 (1966). The City
further concludes that the relevant date for annexations is the date that the petitions are
filed with the City. ORS 222.111(2). This annexation was initiated no later than August
4, 2006, when the last of the petitions, that of Mr. Dyer, was received by the City.
August 4, 2006, was before August 8, 2006, when the County Board acted, so the City
may proceed with the annexation, not withstanding the actions to incorporate the City of
Bull Mountain.
10. Mr. Derr argues that the annexation is in violation of Metro Code Section 3.09.040(a)(1)
because the City lacks jurisdiction. The City has jurisdiction, based on the filing of the
petitions for annexation. Mr. Derr further argues that the City is in violation of Metro
Code Section 3.09.050(3)(5) because the annexation is not consistent with the orderly
provision of public facilities and services because it is in competition with the proposed
Bull Mountain incorporation. The annexation will provide for the orderly provision of
public facilities and services by allowing Tigard services to be provided in the area to be
annexed and would also provide for the orderly provision of parks and water services,
given that the properties owned by the City of Tigard and the Tigard Water District are
planned to be used for parks and water system purposes. Mr. Derr alleges that the
annexation would be contrary to Metro Code 3.09.050(d)(7) because the annexation
would be illegal. The annexation would not be illegal. The proposed annexation is
consistent with Metro Code 3.09.040(a)(1), 3.09.050(d)(5) and 3.09.050(d)(7).
11. Mr. Derr argues that the City failed to provide for "a public hearing necessary to avoid an
' election under ORS 222.120(2)." The City Council held a public hearing on September
26, 2006, in compliance with the hearing requirement.
12. Mr. Derr argues that some or all of the petitions did not comply with the requirements of
Metro Code 3.09.040. Mr. Derr has not identified any way in which the petitions failed
to comply with Metro Code Section 3.09.040. Furthermore, Metro Code Section
3.09.040 is a section relating to submission requirements, and does not establish approval
criteria. The City, by processing the petitions, has accepted that they are sufficient to
allow the City to make a decision based on the applicable criteria.
13. Mr. Derr argues that Sunrise Lane is a county road and that the county has neither
petitioned for nor consented to the annexation. Under ORS 222.170(4), publicly owned
property may be annexed but does not count in the consideration of the sufficiency of the
consents unless the public owner consents or objects. The County has not consented or
objected, so the area is not counted in determining the sufficiency of the consents, even
though it is included in the annexation.
14. Mr. Derr further argues that the annexation is a cherry stem annexation and therefore not
justified. Even if this annexation could be considered a cherry stem annexation, cherry
stem annexations are not illegal. See Morsman v. City of Madras, 191 Or App 149, 81
3
P3d 711 (2003) and cases cited therein. 1VIr. Derr has not argued that the proposed
annexation is unreasonable or provided any factual basis such an argument. The
annexation is reasonable because it provides for an extension of the City boundaries so
that City parks and water facilities will be within the City.
15. Mr. Derr states that the City must clarify the status of zoning and applicability of the Bull
Mountain Community Plan to the property proposed for annexation. The City's decision
does not change the zoning or make the Bull Mountain Community Plan inapplicable to
the areas being annexed.
Findings Related to Written Comments By Karen and John Molloy
16. Kazen and John Molloy submitted a written comment on September 30, 2006, apparently
in opposition to the annexation because the property is within the area of the proposed
City of Bull Mountain. As discussed in the findings related to comments by Lawrence R.
Derr, the proposed incorporation of the City of Bull Mountain does not prevent the City
from proceeding with this annexation.
Findings Related to Written Comments by Michael Orth .
17. Michael Orth submitted a comment on August 13, 2006, opposing the annexation prior to
the vote on the incorporation of the City of Bull Mountain. As stated in the previous
findings, the City finds no legal impediment to proceeding with the annexation at this
time.
Findings Related to Written Comments Richard A. Franzke
18. Richard A. Franzke submitted written comments dated September 26, 2006. Mr. Franzke
argued that the incorporation proceedings were initiated before the City's annexation
proceedings. As discussed in Finding No. 9 above, the City has concluded that the City's
proceedings have priority.
19. Mr. Franzke argued that the City should respect the will of the citizens who will be
affected by its actions. The people who affected by an annexation are the property
owners and voters (if any) in the territory to be annexed. The City has the consent of all
property owners within the territory to be annexed and there are no voters in the territory
to be annexed. The City has been forced to turn aside property owners who want to
annex to the City because they are within the proposed City of Bull Mountain and did not
submit petitions prior to the date the County Board referred the incorporation to the
voters. Mr. Franzke suggests that the City's wish to annex these properties is based on
the desire to increase tax revenues. The vast majority of the property being annexed
(31.79 out of 34.82 gross acres) is publicly owned and not subject to property taxation.
FindinQs Related To Written Comments and Ora1 Testimony of Lisa Hamilton-Treick
4
20. Ms. Hamilton-Treick submitted written comments on September 26, 2006. Ms. Hamilton
first argued that Washington County has not consented to the inclusion of the county
road. Publicly owned property may be included in an annexation and is not counted in
the calculation of consents unless the public owner specifically consents or objects. ORS
222.170(4). The County's lack of consent is relevant to whether the City counts the road
in the total property area, but does not otherwise affect the annexation.
21. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the proposed boundary creates islands and an irregular
boundary. The Council finds that the boundaries of the City are sufficiently regular to be
consistent with Comprehensive Plan 10.1.2. The regularity standard in the
Comprehensive Plan standard is expressly related to whether police will be able to
respond in an emergency situation without difficulty. The City Council finds that the fact
that the vast majority of the property being annexed will be City owned and administered
means that there will be no difficulties for the police in emergency situations. The only
"islands" created are three properties that will be outside Tigard City limits but will be
cut off from county, and possibly future City of Bull Mountain, areas only by Sunrise
Lane.
22. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the proposed boundazies will prevent four property
owners from being included in the proposed City of Bull Mountain. Any property that is
not included in the annexation but is included in the boundaries of the proposed City of
Bull Mountain will be included within the City of Bull Mountain if the voters improve
incorporation. As to the creation of islands, the City does not intend to use the island
annexation process to annex territory if the island is created only by a road or a narrow
strip of property.
23. Ms. Hamilton-Treick questioned the existing zoning designation of the property and the
continued application of the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The property is currently
zoned R-7 under the County's adoption of Tigard zoning. The annexation will not
change the zoning. The ordinance does not provide that the Bull Mountain Community
Plan will cease to be applicable to the property, so it will remain in effect as to the
property.
24. Ms. Hamilton-Treick asked when the City will provide notice to LCDC of any change in
zoning or plan provisions that affect the property. The City witl provide notice if and
when the zoning or plan provisions aze changed. The questions asked by Ms. Hamilton-
Treick do not provide any basis for denying the annexation petitions.
25. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the City's record on Goal 5 resource protection is poor.
The City Council disagrees with her statement. However, nothing in her argument relates
to any applicable standard or criterion.
26. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the City Council did not set a date for the hearing and
that an election is therefore required. The statutory requirement is to hold a hearing, and
the City did hold a hearing. Ms. Hamilton-Treick appeared at the hearing. While ORS
5
222.120(2) does refer to the legislative body fixing the date for a hearing, the City
Council has delegated authority to set all agenda items, including hearings, to the City
Manager. City Council Groundrules, adopted by Resolution 04-83. The matter was set
for hearing by the City Manager, using the authority delegated by the Council.
27. Ms. Hamilton-Treick stated that a county commissioner stated that the property should be
in the proposed City of Bull Mountain. That statement does not relate to any applicable
approval standard or criterion. Ms. Hamilton-Treick further argues that the proposed
City of Bull Mountain and the City of Tigard must work together, presumably on
developing a portion of the City of Tigard property as a regional park. If the City of Bull
Mountain is formed, the Tigard City Council anticipates that Tigard and Bull Mountain
will work together and cooperate on a wide range of issues.
28. Ms. Hamilton-Treick asked that the record be kept open for seven days. The City
Council granted that request.
29. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the City should put the annexation on hold pending the
vote on incorporation. The City can proceed with this annexation because the petitions
were received before the incorporation was referred to the voters.
30. Ms. Hamilton-Treick submitted a letter from a deputy legislative counsel to
Representative Jerry Krummel. That letter expressly states that the sole purpose of the
letter is to assist members of the legislature and that it is not to be considered or used as
legal advice by any other person. The City will not consider the letter or use it as legal
advice.
31. Much of Ms. Hamilton-Treick's oral testimony was the same as her written comments.
None of the additional statements in her oral testimony addressed any applicable standard
or criterion.
Findings Related to Oral Testimony of Kinton Fowler
32. Kinton Fowler testified at the Septemer 26, 2006, hearing. He suggested that the City
hold off on the annexation until after the November 7 election to avoid a legal dispute
and to get the relationship between the City of Tigard and the proposed City of Bull
Mountain off to a good start. Mr. Fowler did not argue that the City was legally
precluded from going ahead with the annexation.
Findings Related to Oral Testimony of Linda Rogers
33. Ms. Rogers questioned the suitability of the property for a park. The proposed park
would be a nature park rather than a park with developed athletic fields. Her testimony
did not raise any issue relevant to any applicable standard or criterion.
6
Supplemental Or.MIBIT„ ~
, J 0,b 0~~Y?
iJ •J
~
R : i~.~ ~~,,w~
~
_ ! t3 ',It,'^
iJk.,. . . ~ . . `t%,..C.T'~~ .i~.7
Sgoomner 25, 2006 .
ASS0008 Pto'VW
+CarY Pq9"*qdW'
~ t~q ~~0~
13125 ~ ~ q~ .
- Req~~~~Wo to Cay dt TWOd .
sod RE-
~ da~reloQm~+~ roq~~ qeA 1 "wo
ttw
resera pue to oonsi~ ~Gse~e ~ i~~ ihe bY
~ ~rmY~ ~ , -
CAy 01 Tvara.
Tha* '!OU Yom a~ to t~s
Regafft •
- .lofu+ 0- Noft Jr. ~~ss
Cywwner.
p'22 06 06.:04p Rep Jerry Krummel 5035702865 p.2
ap,Naoss . ~swcoaxrsr~ s,ei
1.E0I31AflV600UNj ~ - ,~L~ ~
i : ~ ~soa)xa~zsy
~ISOM tM
ci r~
~r
- STATE OF OREGON ,
LEGISLATIVE COUAISEL WMMITTEE
September 20. 2006 -
Representative Jetty Krummei
7544 3W Roartdce Drive N " -
Wilsonvl!!e OR 97070 ` . . Re: Annexation and lncorporatihon Priority
. Dear Representative tfrummet: . . _ ,
You asked abcwi the (egality of proceedings to annex tenitory tnat are initrated after
proceed'mgs to incorporate a new aty have commenced The situatlan invotves a petition to
incorporate the proposed new C"ity of 6u11 Mountain and a subsequsnt petition of the City of
Tigard to annex all or part of the same territory.
It the ptoceedings of both mvdcipalities are lawfully undertaken, the proceedings of both
munfcipaCdies may be maintained and rlone ot the proceedings are void ab initia, or void from
the very inceRtlon of the act.' However. when "twa municipal bocles are lawfulry and fuQy
organized, it is clear that both cannot exist fvr the same purpose and exercise me same
authorlry over the same territory: z The only basis for the coutts to iRtervene tn the othetwise
Iawiul proceedings of either municipality ts to "prevent the abuses mat would arose when iwo
govemmental powers are attempting t,o exercise avthwtity aver the same territory."' Under ihose
drqtmstances and modeted arn the eourrs analysis of the prlority of courts that share concurieM
jurisdiction, the Oregon Supreme Court oonduded that the first munrcipality to exercise
. jurtsdiction obttains priotry to comptete its prvicesdings and that the sewnd municipality "as a
matter vf policyP may nvt (nterfere vuirih the fitst municipality's ptoceedings whfle those
praceedings are pending.° To that end, whRe both proceedings are pending, the first
municipaltty may seek and be entided to have the second municipaGiy enjoined, or ousted in .
quo warranto proceedings, while the flrat municipafity's proceedings are pending 5
• Because the governing body of Washington County approved the petitbn to incorporate
fhe Gty of Bul! Mountain antl set an efection date, appropriate parties who favor incorporatlon
would appear to be entiUed to temporary iNunoiive reGBf to delay the City of Tigard's
proceecOngs to annex the same temtory. The fiJunction might properly be made permanent ii
the electors apptove incorporation at the scheduled electton. ln the absence of injunctive relief,
both prOCeedmgs may vontinue, and, if the elector5 teject incorporation, the City of Tigand's
annexation pfoCeed"mgs talce effeCt if completed in accordance wiih the legal requirements ior
annexation.
'Ls»dta v. Clty ot Roseburg, 243 Or. 44 n9M (dmtlafs orritted).
Z/dat48.
°/dst62
4 !d at 50.
s /d at 51.
k;bpttW7Ic1268 bhc.doc .
22 06 06:04F Rep Jerry Krummel 5035702865 _p.l
RCpresenttAiOJetry Krumme)
SeDtember 20. 20D8
Page 2
The opfnions wmten by the Legisfattve Counset and the stafi at the t.egishative Counsel's
offfoe are prepared solety tvr the puepase of asstsYmg members of the Legfslative Assembly In
the developmsnt and considerafion of iegistativve rnatters. fn perfarming the)r duifes, the
Legisfative Counsel and the members of the statf of tim L,egblatlve Counse{'s office h8ve no
autharity to provide tegai advice to any other person, 9rouA or eruitY- For this reason, this
oplrdon should not be considered or used as tegal adyice 8yr any pemn oiher than legislmrs in
the conduct of legislative business. Pubtic bodies and their officecs and employees should seek
and re{y upon the advice and opinion of the Attomey General, district attorney, county counsel,
city attomey or vther reiained counset. Constituents and other private persons and entities
should seek and rely upon the adrrtae anci opinbn of private counsel.
Sincerety. ANN 80SS
l.egisletive Counsel
~
BY .
B. fiarrison Confey
Deputy Legisiative Counsei
i~rno~uct2se bt,c.aoc
~
oba~~6
Alen k &m
Lisa Hamilton-Treick G
13546 SW Beef Bend Rd.
Tigard, OR 97224
September 26, 2006 Mayor Dirksen and Councilors
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: 41 Acre Cach Creek Annexation
Dear Mayor Dirksen and Members of the Council:
As a resident of unincorporated Bull Mountain and as a Co-Chief Petitioner
for the proposed City of Bull Mountain I object to this annexation and
Tigard's attempt to remove territory from the proposed city boundary.
Significant steps have been taken (and accepted by Washington County) by
members of the community, over several months, in an effort to place
incorporation before the voters on November 7, 2006.
1) The Economic Feasibility Statement was submitted to Washington
County on May 25, 2006, along with other required documents necessary to
begin the incorporation process.
2) On May 30, 2006, 776 petition signatures were submitted to Washington
County. The required 10% of the registered voter's signatures, from within
the proposed boundary, were verified.
3) June 8, 2006 Washington County Board of Commissioners voted to move
forward with public hearings on the incorporation proposal.
4) Three public hearings were held; on August 8, 2006 Washington County
Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to place incorporation before
the voters within the proposed boundary.
I raise the following questions and issues regarding this proposed annexation:
1) There is a lack of consent or petition from Washington County for
inclusion of the county road.
2) The proposed boundary creates islands and an irregular boundary
which is contrary to Tigard's Comp Plan 10.1.2 which provides that
approval shall be based on findings with respect to the following: a)
the annexation eliminates an existing pocket or island of
unincorporated territory, or b) the annexation will not create an
irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an
emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or
outside the City.
Tigard's plan creates islands and prevents four property owners from
being included in the new city boundary. Where does this leave their
vote on November 7, 2006 election only six weeks from now? One
large property owner has recently withdrawn his consent to annex.
This again alters the boundary.
3) The report and the proposed ordinance state that the property is
presently zoned county R-6 and will be changed to a comparable city
R-7 with the annexation by operation of the TDC 18.320.020. I ask
that staff clarify why the designation is not R-7 now under County
Ordinance 487?
4) Historically, Tigard has ignored the Bull Mountain Community Plan,
or has offered annexation as a means to avoid compliance with the
BMCP. What is the city's position on the Bull Mountain Community
Plan as it relates to this annexation? Why doesn't it apply now under
the county ordinance?
5) If the zoning and plan provisions change from county to city then a 45
day advance notice to LCDC is required under ORS 197.610. When
will the city provide such notice?
6) Tigard's track record on Goa15 resource protection is very poor. The
areas proposed for annexation to Tigard are acknowledged by Tigard
to have Goa15 resources. Under Tigard's jurisdiction the level of
protection will certainly decrease and will potentially cause
irreparable harm to the land by compromising the natural resources
and impacting neighboring properties and property owners.
7) Per ORS 222.120(2), if Council chooses not to submit annexation to a
vote of the electors of the city, it shall set a date to hold a hearing
where the electors may appear. Since the Council has taken no action
with respect to this proposal, including not setting a date and ordering
the hearing, this hearing does not dispense with the requirement for an
election.
8) There are competing and unresolved jurisdictional issues which must
be settle through Washington County Circuit Court or through the
Land Use Board of A.ppeals, should Tigard choose to move forward
with this annexation.
9) Washington County Commissioner Dick Schouten wisely stated
during the incorporation hearings, that the best way to provide for
parks in the Bull Mountain area is to keep the Cach Creek nature area,
Tigard's property, and the Tigard Water District property in the new
city boundary, where the combined acreage may be large enough to
qualify as a regional park. The area could be best served if the new
City of Bull Mountain and Tigard must work together to provide the
land, improvements and maintenance dollars.
CIO) Since this is a quasi-judicial hear, I request under ORS 197.763, that
the record remain open for a minimum of seven days to allow
introduction of additional evidence, arguments or testimony.
I request the Tigard City Council place this annexation on hold until after
the November election. The incorporation proceeding was initiated prior
to the annexation proceeding. Washington County has prior jurisdiction
and Tigard cannot proceed until after the election and then only if the city
is not approved.
~
Sincer ly,
q` ~ti,~'
Lisa H ilton-Treick
. , . I
6 6 4r
R E ~ i 4~fy .
L,.
September 2by 2006
C@ty Of T9ga9'd
PUbl1C ~~ariHflg
Testimony of Richard A. Fs°anzke r~;'~'f .s.: ? f•,~
c'_~'i.l'',~iF;,hi6.:. ,_~:j., 'Fr';"•`.:~~
Re: Propmsed annex~~~~~ ol'41 acres on Bu1l Moaantain
I resade at 14980 SW 133"d Avenue
Bull Mountain, Oregon 97224
I testlfy thiS eVenflng tO rem0n~trate agaInSt the
C~~~ of T~~ard's actions in annexation of 41 acrres of land
located withi~ the boundaa°~~~ the proposed new City of
Bull Mountain.
The parties seem to agree thaLL 6bfirs$ in time haS first fln
right95. ORS 2310~~~~~~ prOvfldes that bef0re ci9°CuIatIng
a petition to incorporage a new city9 the petitioners shall
fle with the county clerk a petition for incor°poratfon< 'I'he
statute provides that the clerk shall date and time starnp
the petation and shal➢ immecdiately send two copies to the
county commissione
I believe tfiat the date and time stamping of the incorporation
petition marks the beginning of the incorporation process.
These actions were taken before the city commenced it's
effort to annex the subject property. Accordingly, I believe the residents of Bull Mountain wiil ultimately prevail
in the litigation.
The litigation, however, is NOT what I want to address this
evening. What I want to address is the "wrongness" of the city's
action - it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Has this council no sense
of decency? Has it no respect for the will of the citizens who
would be affected by it's actions? Must the lust for more tax
revenue trump basic fairness?
I urge the council to do the RIGHT thing: stop the
annexation effort immediately and abide the outcome of
the incorporation vote on November 7ch. ;Thank you
ichar ranzke `C---
CONFIItMATION OF CONSENT TO ANNEXATION
On July 24, 2006, the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) signed petitions and consents to
annexation to the City of Tigard for properties then shown on Washington County tax maps as:
2S105DB00400
.
2S l 05DB06100 ~ ' -
2S l 05DB06200
52105DC00100
2S105DC00200
2S105DC00300
2S 1 05DB00400 The City received those petitions and consents no later than August 1, 2006. The IWB petition
and consent was on behalf of the IWB and its members. The IWB was actirig for the City of
Tigard in submitting the petitions and consents.
On August 7, 2006, the City published notice of a hearing on an annexation that included the
above-referenced properties. That notice listed the City as the applicant and stated that the
applicant is seeking annexation of property into the City of Tigard, including the above-listed
properties. The notice also served as a written consent of the City to the proposed annexation.
With the recording of certain property transactions, some of the tax lots listed above have been
consolidated or reconfigured. The City is currently listed as the owner on title to the following
properties, all of which are included in the properties listed above:
2S l O5DB06100
2S l 05DB06200
2S105DC00300
2S l 05DB00400
The City was also the title owner to these properties at the time that IWB signed and submitted
the petitions/consents to annexation.
The City confirms that IWB had authority to consent to the annexations for all interests of the
City of Tigard in any and all of the properties. The City hereby restates that it consents to the
annexation as to all property that it holds title to and as to any other interest in any of the
properties.
Dated this 26`" Day of/ ptember 2006
CITY F T GARD
• , • , ~ ~ iO~va~-/t7(
Cazol,
Please enter the attached documents into the Cach Creek Annexation Record:;:;~;',,;,,,;
1. July 20, 2006, Intergovernmental Water Board Agenda
2. July 20, 2006, Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes
3. July 19, 2006, Letter from King City Mayor Faes to the Intergovernmental Water
Board Chairperson, BiII Scheiderich, recommending the IWB execute annexation
4. Revised July 19, 2006, Letter from King City Mayor Faes to the
Intergovernmental Water Board Chairperson, Bill Scheiderich, recoinmending the
IWB consent to annexation
If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks!
Greer x 2595
.
intergovernmental Water Board
Speciat hPleefing Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area
S-~t`' n. ~~em~'"F`~z.~t;
~-r• 4
When: Where:
Thursday, July 20, 2006 Tigard Water Building
5 p.m. 8777 SW Burnham Street
Tigard, OR 97223
1. Call to Order, Ro1l Call and lnfroductions
Call the meeting to order, staff to take roll call. _
2. Annexation of the Clute, Menlor Reservoir and Cach Properties info the Cify
of Tigard - Brian Rager
Consider a motion to annex the Clute, Menlor Reservoir and Cach properties into
the City of Tigard and to authorize the IWB Chair to execute an annexation
request on behalf of the Board.
. 3. Next Meeting - August 9, 2006, 5:30 p.m. - Water Audfforium
4. Adjournment
Motion for adjoumment.
Executive Session: The Infergovemmental Water Board may go into Executive Session. /f an
Execufive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS cifation will be announced
identifying fhe applicable statufe. AIl drscussions are confidential and those present may
disclose nothing from fhe Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend
Executive Sessions, as provided 6y ORS 192. 66D(4), but musf not disclose any information
discussed. No Executive Session may 6e held for the purpose of taking any final action or
making any final decision. Execufive Sessions are closed to the public.
intergovernmental IiVater Boarc!
Speciai IlAeeting Minutes
July 20, 2006
Tigard VNater Building
8777 SW Burnham Street
Tigard, Oregon
Members Presenf: Patrick Carroil (arrived 5:04 p.m.), Beverly Froude, Bifi
Scheiderich, Dick Winn and Sydney Sherwood (altemate for
Tom WoodruM
Members Absent: Tom Woodruff
Staff Present: Assistant Public Works Director Brian Rager
Water Quality & Supply Supervisor John Goodrich
IWB Recorder Greer Gaston
1. Call fo Order, Roll Catl and Introducfions
The meeting was called to order at 5:01 p.m.
2. Annexation of the Clute, Men/or Reservoir and Cach Properties into the City
of Tigard
Commissioner Scheiderich stated the Board was considering a consent to annexation
and added the Board was not taking public comment at this meeting. He noted the
Board had heard public comments on this issue at its July 12, 2006, meeting and he
had acted on those comments.
Commissioner Scheiderich addressed the following issues:
Consent to Annexation/Public Process
Commissioner Scheiderich emphasized the Board was not annexing the properties in
question. He announced he had spoken with Washington County Counsel and
confirmed the issue under consideration was whether the Board wanted to consent to
annexation. This does not mean the properties will be annexed. He noted the actual
annexation process would be a land use matter handled through the City of Tigard and
this process would require a public hearing. The annexation decision cou(d be
appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals.
Ownership
Commissioner Scheiderich emphasized any action taken by the Board would not affect
the ownership of property.
Intergovernmental Water Board July 20, 2006
1
fVote: Commissioner Carrofl arrived at 5:04 p.m.
Shared Ownership
Commissioner Scheiderich commented the City of Tigard has deemed the members of
the Board as having an ownership interest in the properties. He added the City, as the
managing agency, could have bypassed this process and asserted it had sufficient
ownership to initiafe fhe annexation on its own. In asking the TWD and two other cities
to go through this process, the City was aliowing for more consideration than required.
UrqencX
Commissioner Scheiderich stated the City of Tigard's position was that water assets, :
like the reservoir, are very important and the possibility of turning these assets over to
another city is too much of an unknown. The Bull Mountain petition of incorporation
compelled Tigard to decide whether to leave the water properties in the unincorporated
area, where they may end up within the boundaries of a new city, or to annex them
now. Impact of Boundary Changes ~ Commissioner Scheiderich stated the point of the upcoming Bull Mountain
incorporation public hearings is solicit input, regarding boundaries and other issues,
from cities or other entities that may be affected by fhe incorporation. Commissioner
Scheiderich reported, according to County Counsel, changing the boundaries would
not affect the feasibility study. The purpose of the hearings is to decide what the
boundaries should be and redrawing the boundaries would not put a stop to
incorporation.
Attempt to Disrupt Incorporation Commissioner Scheiderich said he did not believe the annexation was an attempt fo
undermine incorporation. He added he would have serious reservations about
supporting the consent to annex if he believed this to be the case.
Tax Revenue
Commissioner Scheiderich stated annexation of the properties would not affect the tax
revenue of the new city, since properties owned by the City and the TWD are not
taxable.
Pa►ics
Commissioner Scheiderich explained Metro had allocated money to purchase some of
ihe property, and although this was pubiic money, Tigard determinea how and where
the money was spent. He doubted Tigard wou{d single out non-city residents when it
came to using the park and added any parks created from the annexed parcels would
be regiona( assets.
Motion and Positions
Commissioner Scheiderich asked for a motion giving the Board's consent to
annexation of the Clute, Menlor Reservoir, and Cach properties to the City of Tigard
Intergovemmental Water Board Juty 20, 2006
2
and authorizing the Chair to sign the consent to annexation. Commissioner Carroli so
moved and Commissioner Sherwood seconded the motion.
Commissioner Scheiderich asked the Commissioners to state their position.
Commissioner Carroll reported in order to protect water assets, the City of Durham
recommended the annexation of the Menlor Reservoir, Clute property and Cach
properties into the City af Tigard.
Commissioner Winn, as the King City representative, reported he had been directed to
recommend approval of consent to annexation. He stated his initial objection was the
IWB should not be in the business of annexing properties and the Board should not be
used by the City of Tigard for this purpose. Commissioner Winn concluded that given
Commissioner Scheiderich's assessment of the property situation, the consent to
annex made sense.
Note: On 7-26-06 King City submitted a revised letter dated 7-99-06 changing the
wording of their previous memo from "The City Council of King City recommends that
the !W8 execute annexation to "The City Council of King City recommends that
the IVI/B consent to annexation..."A copy of the revised letter is on file in the IWB
record.
Commissioner Sherwood, representing the City of Tigard, explained Tigard needed to
protect and continue taking care of the water district property within Tigard city limits,
as opposed to having the property reside within some other city.
Commissioner Froude stated she would abstain from the vote. She represents the
TWD and the District had not made a recommendation.
The motion was approved by a majority vote of 4-0-1, with four yes votes and one
abstention by Commissioner Froude.
Note: item # 3, Next Meeting - August 9, 2006, 5:30 p.m. - Water Auditorium, was not
discussed.
4. Adjournmenf: The meeting was adjoumed at 5:12 p.m.
Greer A. Gaston, IWB Recorder
Date: IqU -1- 9
Intergovemmental Water Board Juty ZQ, 2006
3
KING CITY 16500 S.W. l l6th Avenue, King City, Oregon 97224•2698
~ Phone: (603) 63,4-4082 • FAX (503) 63.9•3771 '
?/19/200b
A,riy. Biil ScheidericG, Chairman
Intergovernmenta( Water Bvard
City af Tigard
13125 SW Ha(1 Bl.vd,
Tigard, Onegon 97224
Dear Chairman Scheiderich:
Tbe City Councit of. King City neeommends tlhat the 1WB execute annexation of the
Menlor Reservoir Site, Clute property and Cac6 properties into the City of Tigard.
*Sincer
Faes
Mayor
KING CITY
1fw300 3W.116th Avenue, KinR C1tY, amvon 9'JZ24-2fi.49
Phone: (b03) 639-4082 • FAX (603) Gd9.3771
7l19/2006
~P C 4e i
07-26-06PO4 :23
Atty. Bill Scbeideticb, Citairmae
IntergpvemmetrWl Water Board
City of Tigatd
13125 5W Helt Blvd.
Tigard, dregon 97124
Dear Chairman Scbeiderich'
The City Councii of King City tecommends tiai thc IWB cortsent to affiexation of thc
Menlas Resetvoir Site, Chrte prope4ty and Cach PcoPeties +ato tke City of Tigard.
5ince;ety; ,
"4~~g t /
Charics R Faes
yor
1 aft : Qn ?-ZG D1, kmt
. ~
~a.xed ~~cs revd G~
~anr$ Ylv- umm
'Ur ~v~Qtc.s nc,uha ,
/6i3
execcc~ a.r~ ne~Ca .~t.diL - . . „
• ~.1 .
5035219135 ~ •
3U 11:31a John S• Mallo~
Sep -
• ~ ~~'f-~-"~ ~ ~ ~ t.~
i
cf (00 ~ .
?'1 CJ/ov
§63 bal Eya5 .
~
y ~ L-d~~v~c19
~r~~~~ I ~ f
~Q' ~(S
~JY`e`S ~
~T_t t l
J .~.e ` .S
~
10J03/2006 TUE 14:55 FAX iR6800 @001/003
~w•' ~ S ~ ~
. • t~ ~~a ~
r
LAW OFFICES OF (Q~t~
i
• ~`:fY, t
JOSSELSON, POTTER & ROBERTS
425 NW IOTH AVENUE, SUITE 306
PORTLAND, OREGON 97209
Telephone: (503) 228-1455
Facsimile: (503) 228-0171
FAX COVER SHEET
FAX NUMBER: to
DATE: l3l a6
TIME
NO. PAGES: ~(iiicluding cover sheet)
TO: Einily Eng
FROM: Larry Derr
:l:.k;~::'r%k:t:(::k:t:,l•:R~:=E:;::x:,tt;::k~~'~~.'~~r~~:'.::~=4~G=k:k;~F~~~~~~:f:o::k~ #Y:L:R~i:i~ ::fi?:~.`~::1::g:k:t:."•~~;k~i=:#~d~.i::i•:t.Y•.3:~:~a::K:i::k:k~ :k~
MESSAGT
Please iilclude the attached letter in the record for the Cach Creek aruiexation. Thank you.
This fax is also being sent by regular mail. X This is only being sent by fax.
The information contained in this fax is conlictential and is intendeci only for tlic use of
tlie indivi<lual or entity to whnm it is nddressed. It m:►y contnin informntion protecte(i by the
attorney-client privilege.
If you do not rcceive all pages, plensc call (503) 228-I455 and ask fw• Tcrri or Lincta.
10/03/2006 TUE 14:56 FAX iR8800 !M002/003
' taw O(ficFS ot
JOSSEISON, pOTTER & ROI7ERT5
TNe GREGoay • Sl1ITE 106
425 MM iQ►F+ AvFnw Poctrland, OaEqaN 97209
Tclcplto!ve: (503) 228-1455
I3Y FAX 503-598-1960
Tigard City Council
Attn: Emily Eng
Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Boutevatd
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Proposed Cach Creek Annexation
Mayor Dirksen and Members of the Council:
I repxesent Lisa Hamilton-Treick in connection wifli the above described
annexation proposal. My client opposes the amtexation. This letter supplements material
provided to the Council by Ms. Hamilton-Trieck and other opponents, all of which raise
issues that nnust be addressed by tlie Council before it attempts to annex this pc•operty.
The threshold .issue is whether the City cazi proceed at ail until the result of khe
incorporation election for the City of Bull Mountain is known. The ineprporation
proceeding was initiated with the filing of valid signed petitions and a map of the
proposed annexation territory with Washington County on May 30, 2406. On June 6,
2006 the Board of County Commissioners seE heAring dates for July 25, August I and
August 8, 2006 and ordered the giving of notice of the hearings. On August 8 the Board
adopted 1n order to place the incorporation on the Noveinber 7, 2006 ballot. Notice of
the action pursuant to Metro Code was subsequentty given. No appeals were filed to
LUBA or under Metro procedures within the prescribed times.
The territory of the proposed annexation is entirely within the area originally
proposed for incorporation by the petition map and the area included in the Board order.
The City has taken no actions to initiate this annexation that are prior in time to the
incorporation procedures. The City does not have authority to proceed with the
annexation unless and until the incoiporation yate fails to favor the incozporation.
Proceeding in khe interim is also in violation of Metro Code sections 3.09.040(a)(1)
because the City does not have jurisdiction to proceed, 3.09.050(d)(5) because doing so
in the face of a competing and prior annexation proceeding is not consistent with the
orderly provision of public facitities and services, and 3.09.050(d)(7) Uecause of the
violation of state law in doing so.
tAWRENCE R. DERN
Facsin+ite. (503) 228-0171 OF COUNSEL [-rnail: jpu@jpalnw.cone
• 19/03/2006 TUE 14:56 FA% iR8800 Q003/003
. .
JOSSEISON, PUTTER Sa RobERTS
Tigard City Council
Attn: Emily Eng
Page 2 - Continued
Moreover, it does not appear from this record that the Council, the legislative
body of the City, provided for a public hearing necessary to avoid an eIection under ORS
222.120(2), or tliat a petition for annexation was subznitted that complies with the
requirements of Metro Code 3.09.040.
Sunrise Lane is dedicated County Road. The annexation proposal does not
include a petition or consent to anxiexation from Washington County for the extended
length of Sunrise Lane included in the annexation or account for the property as property
included without consent. The adjacent property that was inelucled in the Sunrise Lane
annexation is not, or within few days will not be, in tlie City as a result of the reinand af
that action by LUBA. The Court of Appeals appeal from LUBA's decision has been
dismissed and LUBA either has or shortly will reissue its remand order. With the Sunrise
Lane annexation area excluded from [he City, the proposed annexation becomes one that
relies on a long "cherry stem" approach that cannot be justified.
The City must clarify what the cunent status of zoning and the Bull Mountain
Community PIan are for the property and what chanbes, if any will be made by this
annexation action. If annexation changes the zone and/or removes the Buli Mountain
Community Plan, notice must have been given to LCDC under state statute. In the 'case
of the removal of the IIuII Mountain Community Plan, the City must explain how the
action will comply with Goal 5 foz• the identified natuxa] resources, including trees, on the
property.
Very t-iuly yours,
aw nce R. Derr
Supplemental EXMIBIT C
.
Cach Creek Area Annexation - Assessed Value of Properties to be Annexed
Tax Ma Property Owner Acres Assessed Value Market Value
2S105D606100City of Ti~ard 1.36 0 424,810
2S105D606200___ CityofTisard________ 0_37 0_______ 104_340
2S105D600400_ Tiqard Water District_ _11:03 0 ____1_316 700
_
2S105DC00201 City of Tiqard____ 12_15 0______ 1:157_500 ~
- - - - 66 -
2S105DD300--- Dyer-------------------- --2:56 820' 980
2S105DD00200 Dyer._ 0.47 150
* 180
-
-
2S105DC00300 City -of -Ti-qard__ 3_20 0__ _ 130
- -
2S105DC00 -400 ~ Ci of Ti ard 0.93 0 578,210
"Forest Deferral
~
.
City of Tigard, Oregon
=
Affidavit of Posting
TIGARD
, In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) - 2006-15
STATE OF OREGON )
Counry of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, ve y OL l~_ L✓; '~-r , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath
(oY affixmation), depose and say:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
~
Number(s) 0=1S , which were adopted at the City Council
meeting of /0 -/0 ' 6 b , with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto
attached and by YefeYence made a paYt hereof, on the
~ day of _ ~•~.~f'o , -c , , 200 (
1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Tigaxd Public Libxary, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
3. Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
Signature of Person w o Performed Posting
OFFICIAL SEAL
SubsVed d s orn (or affrmed) before me this day of CAROLA KRAGER
, 20 Do NOTARY PUBIIC-OREGiON
COMMISSION NO. 402780
*my COMMISSION EXPIRES FEBRUARY23, 2010
Signature of Notary Public for Ore n
ft Revised October 5, 2006
Fober ARD CITY COUNCII.,
MEETING ~
r
10, 2006 630 p.m.
IGARD CIT'Y HALL 125 SW H1~LL 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 fox a future
Agenda by contacting eithex the Mayor or the City Manager.
Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons intexested 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
730 12.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with unpaired hearing and should be scheduled
for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171,
ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (I'DD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao.
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 interpteters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much
lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the
meeting by calling. 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Dea fl.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - October 10, 2006 page 1
v
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 10, 2006
G3U PM
• ST'UDY SESSION
➢ Briefing on Outreach and Education Meetings with Urban Renewal District Property and
• Business Owners concerning Land Use and Design Guidelines
• Community Development Staff
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Execurive Session to discuss real
property transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2)(e). 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 ot making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
7:30 PM
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Conttact Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
13 Pledge of Allegiance ,
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports
1_5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATTON (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
• Tigard High School Student Envoy Jasmina Dizdarevik
• Tualatin Resource Center Annual Update - Director Catherine West
• Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication
3. 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:
3.1 Receive and File:
3.1.a Council Calendar
3.1.b Tentative Agenda
COUNCIL AGENDA - October 10, 2006 page 2
3.2 Local Contract Review Board
3.2.a Award contract for Hydrogeologist of Record
3.2.b Award Contracts for Traffic and Transportation Engineering Services on an
as-Required Basis
• Con.rent Agenda - Item.r Kemoved for Sebarate Di.rcu.rrzon: Any itemf reque.rted to be removed frnm the
Consent Agenda for .reparate dzrcu.rsion ivill be con.ridered immediately after the Council ha.r voted on tho.re
item.c ivhich do not need di.rcu,r.rion.
4. UPDATE ON THE 41STBRIGADE BY THE AMERICAN LEGION
• Staff Introduction: Administration Staff
5. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY
LEVY
a. Staff Report: Police Department Staff & Washington County Sheriff Gordon
b. Council Discussion
c. Council Consideration: Approve Resolution No. 06- C9 =2
6. UPDATE ON PROPOSED WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERA'TIVE LIBRARY
SERVICES OPERATIONAL LEVY
a. Staff Report: Library Staff
b. Council Discussion
7. COMMUTER R.AIL UPDATE
a. Staff Introduction: Community Development Staff
b. Council Discussion
8. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION NO. 06- 6-►7
FORMING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 (SW HILL
VIEW/102ND STREETS)
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges
c. Staff Report: Engineering Staff
d. Public Testimony:
Ptoponents
Opponents
COUNCIL AGENDA - October 10, 2006 page 3
1
e. Staff Recommendation
f. Close Public Hearing
g. Council Consideration: Approve Resolution No. 06--6a
9. CONSIDER ANNEXATION OF THE CACH CREEK AREA (ZCA 2006-00002)
a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff
b. Council Discussion
c. Council Consideration: Approve Ordinance No. 06-15
10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
11. NON AGENDA ITEMS
F•XF.CUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard Ciry 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.
12. ADJOURNMENT
i: \adm\cathy\cca\2006\06101 Op.doc
COUNCIL AGENDA - October 10, 2006 page 4
CITY MANAGER
Citizen Communication Follow Up
For the October 10, 2006 Meeting
At the last City Council business meeting held on September 26, 2006, the following
individuals testified duting Citizen Communications to the City Council.
K'Sistin Preston, 14955 SW 79''', Tigard, OR 97224 submitted a copy of a letter to the
Council, dated September 26, 2006. She noted that Council had expressed the hope that hex
neighborhood would stay organized after their Local Improvement District had concluded.
She said they are still very intexested, as theit street is rapidly being developed. They are in
communicarion with the City's Engineering Department but they want their priorities noted
in a public forum.
• They do not want bike lanes on 79`h Avenue. She understands that Council feels
theix hands axe tied by the 2002 Transpoxtation System Plan. When that group is
reconvened, they request that theix neighborhood be represented to review those
issues.
• They continue to oppose planter strips.
• They want to see ttaffic calming methods used on SW 79`h Avenue. There don't
seem to be any planned.
City Manager Prosser said he would pass along her lettex and would be interested in hearing
from staff on these issues.
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR, said he xaised the issue at the August Fifth
Tuesday Meeting about the timeliness and amount of change in the Parks SDC fees. He
hasn't heard back from staff yet and would appxeciate hearing from them. He said his
problem is that the Ciry is always behind in property valuation for Parks SDC fees and is not
getting the right amount of money. He said the entire expense of the Ciry Council could be
covered with the amount of money collected by making timely forecasting changes. City
Manager Prosser noted that it would not cover the cost of City Council or any operating cost
because that is prohibited by law. He said it is governed by state law and there is a process
we need to go thtough. City Manager Prosser said he did not think the law allowed for
prospective forecasts of land value but he will double check on that.
Mr. Frewing also noted that the City approved a development permit because of the City's
failure to take final action befoxe 120 days after completeness of the application. He said the
TigaYd Code timelines don't allow much time. His concern is that there should be, in every
case, time allowed foY a potential appeal. He asked that there be a directive to the Planning
staff that when they are not able to satisfy the 120 day limit because of lack of information
from the applicant, for example, they ask fox enough time so the City's final decision can be
made after an appeal and still fall within the approved time. Mayor Dirksen suggested that
Council consider what Mr. Frewing said and if anyone feels that it is a concern they can
bring it up for a future agenda discussion.
I\AllM\Cathy\CCM\Citizen Communication follow up\OGlO]O.doc
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
October 10, 2006 - 630 p.m.
13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon
6:30 PM
• STUDY SESSION
➢ Briefing on Outreach and Education Meetings with Urban Renewal District Property and
Business Owners concerning Land Use and Design Guidelines
• Community Development Staff
• EXECUTNE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss real
property transaction negotiations and for consultation with legal counsel tegarding potential lirigation
undet ORS 192.660(2)(e) and (h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose
nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive
Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No
Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final
decision. Executive Sessions axe closed to the public.
• ADMINISTR.ATIVE IT'EMS
➢ Tonight's Business Meeting:
o Item No. 2- Citizen Conununication - Tualatin Resoucce Center Annual Update by
Catherine West will be rescheduled. (See email from Ms. West.)
o Item No. 4- Update on the 4151 Brigade by the American Legion will be rescheduled due to
illness of one of the presentexs.
➢ Discuss holiday schedule for Council meetings (calendars for November, December and Januaty
ate attached):
o Thanksgiving week - Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 21 (workshop meeting)
o Christmas week - Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 26 (business meeting)
o January 9 meeting - hold for ceremonial meeting? Oaths of office, election of Council
pxesident, State of the City Address, reception for newly elected Mayor and Councilors,
photos.
➢ Council goal-setting meeting in December?
Council Calendar
October
10 Business Meeting, 6:30 p.m., RRCCR & Town Hall
17 Workshop Meeting, 6:30 p.m., RRCCR & Town Hall
24 Business Meeting, 6:30 p.m., RRCCR & Town Hall
31 Fifth Tuesday Council Meeting - CANCELLED
Novembet
10 Veteran's Day Holiday - City offices closed
14 Joint Meeting with Lake Oswego City Council (at Lake Oswego)
21 Workshop Meeting, 6:30 p.m., RRCCR & Town Hall
28 Business Meeting, 6:30 p.m., RRCCR & Town Hall
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 cla.red 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 properry transaction negotiations.
192.660 (2) - 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 othet governing bodies.
192.660 (2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties
regarding cuzrent litigation or litigation likely to be 6led.
192.660 (2) (i) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and poliry directives adopted
by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief
executive officer, a public officex, employee or staff inember 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 opportuniry for
public comment
192.660 (2) 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 Boacd.
192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security.
SeCt vi- 0
.
CZty Of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223
~
October G, 2006
Greetings:
I would like to personally invite you to be involved in an important process stardng this fa1L The
City of Tigard is pianning to develop new land use regulations for the Downtown Urban Renewal
Atea and is seeking suggestions and Eeedback from stakeholders and residents_ The changes wil(
hclp carry out d-te T`igard Downtown Improvement Plan in the votet-approved Utban Renewal
District
You may notice some changes in the Downcown soorL Next summer, Burnham Stteet will be fully
reconstructed, induding new sidewalks and street trees. The Commuter Rail line will begin
operation in 2008 with a new Downtown sration.
Overall, changes in the Downtown will be a gradual Process. New regularions are needed to ensure
that building design and quality Protect property values, encourage new investment, and ate in
concert with the vision for the future. New development will have to meet the new standards, but
existing buildings and uses will be able to conanue.
Two informational meeangs have been scheduled Ptease set time aside to attend one of chem
Morning meeting: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce, 12345 SW Main St
(I'uesday, October 24, 7:30-8:30 AN~
Evening rneeting Tigard PubGc Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd.
(Wednesday, November 1, 6:30-730 PM.)
IE you have ang quesaons, please contact Associate Planner Sean Farrelly. (503-718-2420 or e-mail
sean@dgard-or.gov).
We (ook Eorward to your participation in this process that is essential Eor building a heart for Trigard.
Sincerel
, ,
Craig E. Dir{:sen
Mayor
Attachments:
Downcown Newsletter
Downtown Meetinp: Flyer
Phone: 503.639.4171 9 Fax: 503.684.7297 . www.tigard-or.gov 9 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772
Downtown Tigard Update q
Volume 1, Issue 1 Fall 2006
Downtown: What's Next? "
In May 2006, Tigard voters approved an Urban Renewal District for "
the Downtown area. Over the nest several years, funds will become
available for road and sidewalk improvements, an expansion of the . `
Fanno Creek Park and other projects from the Tigard Downtown
Improvement Plan. Here are the projects that are just around die
corner:
➢ Burnham Street:: Next summer, the Burnham Streetscape project will start construction.
Burnham Street will be transformed With wide sidewalks, a canopy of
street trees, and newly paved road surface.
➢ Commuter Rail: Work has started on the line connecting Wilsonville with the Beaverton
Transit center. The system should be fully operational by fall, 2008. Downtown Tigard will
be the home of a new rail station with a park-and-ride lot.
➢ New Land Use/Design Guidelines: The City Center Advisory Commission (a
citizen group) has made initial recommendations for updating the Development Code
in the Urban Renewal Area. The changes will primarily address the permitted land
uses and the requirements for new development (such as building heights and
parking). "Design guidelines," which create standards for the appearance of new
development, were also recommended. Current buildings and uses will be able to
continue.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
: GET INVOLVED!
: Downtown property and business owners and other interested parties are invited to meet with staff ;
: and citizens at two public forums. These meetings are scheduled for:
• Tuesday, October 24, 7:30-8:30 AM
Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce ~
12345 SW Main St. ~
1i o
• Wednesday, November 1, 6:30-7:30 PM
Tigard Public Library, Community Room
13500 SW Hall Blvd. ~
; These meetings will answer any questions you may have about Urban Renewal, Land Use changes,
~ and streetscape improvements. Please contact Sean Farrelly, with Ciry of Tigard Long-Range
: Planning, for more information (sean aK.tiga^ rd~-or.gov or phone 503-718-2420).
Downtown Ti*gard Upd. '
_ 4~ ~ •y 7.~
Find Out What's Happening Downtown!
Join us for two public forums with City staff and citizens. Find
out the latest information and share your thoughts on these
upcoming Downtown projects:
Urban Renewal
L~ Commuter Rail
0 Burnham Street Improvements
2 New Land Use Ru1es/Design Guidelines
Bring your questions and comments to the table!
d. Octob' 4 Raa ~ ~4
1: I' a
g. . A Chamber of Co `aDo
12345 .
dnesd. ovemb'
;
0-7:30 -
P11RM6RS ;l7
~ MARKET il
gard Public Lib •
. •
ommunity Roo
~ -
13500 . i d
1
~~y q ~.`i w~~'~•-' • ~
~O~n ~I~.AA11w~~ ~~~~OJ~~' 1'~'~-~.~~ \ ~Ni _ ~-~~.'A~-M~L • f~s•
••~„e-~---.~..,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_~~,;,,. For more information,
contact: Sean Farrelly
City of Tigard
Long- Range Planning
(503) 718-2420 ~ a
` sean@tigard-or.gov -t ~
p60q2G
. . e 14;
2e t--
79`h Avenue Neighbors co m m- /
14955 SW 79`h Avenue ,n p~Ci. 1Tem 2 -
Tigard, Oregon 97224 ~
September 26, 2006
TIGARD CTTY COUNCIL
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Mayor Dirksen and Members of the Tigard City Council:
Reconstruction of 79`h Avenue rapidly is taking place due to private development at both
ends of the street. We are appearing before the City Council tonight to make a public record of
our specific requests for the design of this reconstruction. I submitted a copy of this document to
City Engineer Gus Duenas prior to this meeting.
First, the 79"' Avenue Neighbors continue to oppose construction of bike lanes along 790'
Avenue. Bike lanes would add 12 feet to the width of 7901 Avenue and take away 12 feet of
existing trees and yards. Bike lanes on 79`h Avenue are unnecessary and impractical. 79fl'
Avenue is a.7 mile street. For that distance, cars and bikes can share the road. Existing bike
lanes on Hall Boulevard already connect Bonita and Durham (just 6 blocks away) and also are
designated for 72°d Avenue between Bonita and Durham.
We understand that 79"' Avenue bike lanes are included in the 2002 Tigard
Transportation System Plan (2002 TSP) and so the Council feels that its "hands are tied" on this
issue. We also understand that the 2002 TSP will be reviewed and revised soon. We respectfully
request that a member of 791h Avenue Neighbors be included on the committee that will make
those revisions.
Second, the 791h Avenue Neighbors continue to oppose the placement of planter strips
along 79'11 Avenue. Without a city budget item for upkeep, these planter strips are becoming an
eyesore around Tigard. They also take away 10 - 12 feet of 79"' Avenue properties, most of
which are landscaped and maintained by homeowners in a more ariractive manner than public
planter strips.
Third, we respectfully request traffic calming methods to be included in the
reconstruction of 791h Avenue. We are experiencing higher volumes of traffic traveling at higher
speeds along our street.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests. As always, our purpose continues to
be to preserve the livability and unique character of our neighborhood by maintaining a quiet,
peaceful, pastoral and safe neighborhood street.
Sincerely,
Kristm Preston
79`i' Avenue Neighbors
J;
11
-
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Councilors
Craig Prosser, City Manager
FROM: Gus Duenas *~I
City Engineer
RE: Meetings with Congressional Delegation
DATE: October 10, 2006
At the WCCC (Washington County Coordinating Committee) meeting today, one of the
topics was an upcoming meeting with the congressional delegation arranged by the WEA
(Westside Economic Alliance). The meeting is scheduled for October 25, 2006 and will
be conducted as part of the WEA Board meeting. It will be held in the City of Tigard
Library Community Meeting Room from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., just prior to the
Commuter Rail project groundbreaking ceremony.
The WEA has arranged to have Representatives Wu and Hooley, and Senator Wyden
meet with the Board, representatives from the business community, and representatives
from the cities and County. The WCCC is making arrangements to have representatives
from various parts of the County speak (briefly-about 3 minutes or so) during the
meetings. The WEA will have representatives from high tech and possibly Nike at the
meeting to also make short presentations. They anticipate about a half hour with each
delegate, assuming they come at the requested time.
Senator Smith will not be able to make the meeting but will address the West Economic
Alliance at its Breakfast Forum meeting the next day, October 26, 2006. The WEA will
be sending invitations for both meetings to the Mayors of each jurisdiction. Coordinating
Committee members are also requested to attend.
Attached are letters from Kathy Lehtola, Director of Land Use and Transportation, and
Jonathan Schlueter, Executive Director of WEA providing more information about the
meeting. Also attached is a flyer announcing the Breakfast Forum Series meeting for
October 26, 2006.
Attachments
~ WASHINGTON COUNTY
OREGON
~
October 2, 2006
To: Washington County Coordinating Committee
From: Kathy Lehtola, Director
Land Use and Transportation
Subject: Toward Transportation Funding Priorities
We have reserved time at your October 10 WCCC meeting to discuss transportation project priorities to
relay to those members of our congressional delegation able to appear at the Westside Economic
Alliance (WEA) Board meeting on October 25. (I've attached the letter of invitation from WEA
Executive Director Jonathan Schlueter to Senators Smith and Wyden and Representatives Wu and
Hooley.)
I am hopeful that this will be the first of a series of periodic discussions with our congressional
representatives and their staffs, locally and in Washington D.C. As the WCCC has discussed during
recent meetings, we should plan to spend some time in the not to distant future organizing those future
discussions.
Given that the WEA Board meeting allows only about a half hour with each representative, and that
there's a lot of ground to cover, I think it advisable to focus on a few top projects this time around. As a
starting point for WCCC discussion, I would propose we emphasize our appreciation for past help,
characteristics of region-wide system performance that must be maintained, and a few high priority
projects, as follows:
First, thanks for:
• Commuter Rail support
• Beaverton- Hillsdale/Oleson/S cholls earmark
• Continued support for Highway 26 improvements
We must maintain:
• Traffic safety and mobility throughout the region
• Federal support in both funding and legislation
Specific high priority projects include:
• I-5/99W Connector
• Hwy. 217
• Beaverton-Hillsdale/Oleson Intersection
• OR 205 improvements
Potential future priorities:
.
Please be thinking about this list and how we might structure a presentation in coordination with the
WEA. Depending on who will attend and how long we have, we might want to tailor a presentation for
each senator and/or representative. Food for thought.
Jonathan Schlueter will attend the WCCC meeting and will be able to provide us with a status report on
attendance. See you there.
Department of Land Use & Transportation • Planning Division
155 N. First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
phone: (503) 846-3519 • fax: (503) 846-4412
PRESfDEhT.
RUN )UHNS(N7 •
PORT{AND GENERAL EIECTRIC .
VICE PRESIDEtT
fACK ORCNAND
RALL JANIIC LLP
rkeasukeR ECONOMIC ALLIANCE
Sreve CuxK The leader in advocating
COMMUNITY NEWSPAI'ENS
,jor a irealthr ecnrtomic environmcnt
PAST PRESIDENT
JIM EDWARDS Se tember 12, 2006 BIRTCHE0. DEVEL()YMEI.T, LLC P
A4EMBER AT LAHGF.
MA7T FELTON
FELTUN PROPERTIES, INC.
U.S. Senator Gordon Smith
DIRECTORS ' 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1250
FItANK ANGELCI Portland Or~non 97204
' 11NGEL0 EATCIN n As.5t1('IAl'ES + V~
JONAE ARMSTN(1NG ~
YVASHINGTON SUUAItE MALL °nvio BE""EI-r
Dear Senator Smith:
LANDYE RENN£ff HLUAfSfkIN .
JANICE RURGEN '
PR(riIDFNCE HEAI,TH SYSTEM u ject: Invitation To Meet With Westside Business and Community Leaders
Lo15 DITMANS PETERICURT TOWNE SQUARE On behalf of the public and private sector members of Westside Economic Alliance,
NORM CDER
CONKUNG FISKVM 6 MCCONMICK I am Pleased to extend this invitation to have You meet and visit with the business
MA0.K FISHEk and community leaders from the Westside of the Portland metropolitan region on
STANI'U0.P MORTGAGF. INVE57()K5, LLC yyednesday morning, October 25 in Beaverton. Our Board of Directors have invited
RicN FpLEr local elected officials from 12 Westside communities to oin us for this meetin to
UMPUUA RANK ~
KIMRERLY FULLEN discuss federal appropriations for much-needed transportation projects in our region.
Equirv OFrice
DICK LUFFfIMACHER As you know, Westside Economic Alliance is a regional business advocacy group,
VAcTRUSr representing the leading employers, commercfal developers and property managers,
n"' P""KE"
THG MELyIN MARK COMVANIEti as well as the local communities on the Westside of the Portland metro region who
nM "C„E are dedicated to improving the business climate and promoting the economic
NIKE, iNC. development of our fast-growing region. Our 190 members employ more than
RNIAN RICE 50,000 workers in nearly every sector of our regional economy, in both the public
KEY BANK
MIKE SCMMID and private sectors.
L(7ff CONSUL7'ING ENGINEERS ED TR()MVRH This invitation is also being made on behalf of our community partners, including the
JURDAN $CHRADEN mayors, county commissioners and city council members of 12 local communities in
R""°" v°""`
NoKKis Beces n SiMrsON Washington County who comprise the Washington County Coordinating Committee.
TC)M BNIAN These local officials share many of our interests and concerns about the growing
WASHINGTUN COIiN'fY transportation needs of their communities and region, and have been invited to join
RoN DRAICE our WEA Board of Directors for this meeting, and share in this discussion with you.
CITY Of I3EAVF.RT<)N '
TC1A1 HUGHES
CITY OF HILLSIIONU We are requesting to meet with you for 30 minutes on Wednesday morning, October
L()U CIGDEN 25, between 7:30-9:30 a.m. in the second floor Board room at Providence St Vincent
GTv OF TunuTIH Medical Centet, which is located at 9205 S.W. Barnes Road in Beaverton.
hlcc 1M~5oN
Grr oF TicAan "
,I~)NATIIAN Sl/1LUE1'EN This is a rare and important opportunity to meet with the business and community
IKESTSIDE ECf7Ncll.tlC,~~~~~~cr. leaders on the Westside of the Portland metro region during your time here in the
. state, late next month. We hope you will be able to join our members and elected
sUsrninNIc n,ENtiMKS officials for this timely and informative exchange of informafion, and invite your staff
CUUIT1' OFFI(:f: to contact me as soon as possible to confirm these plans and discuss the necessary
f~LT~IN rK~~vii.Krms, INc. preparations for this meeting.
Irrrei. l uNtuK.cn nu
KAltifp PIiNA/,\NF.N7'L'
Kc iN%-vs~~~rw-n With best regards,
MEI.VIA NI,1NF C 1)All'ANIf1
N1Kk. INC. . . '
I',\C'TRI:tiT RIkrunn C,t:NEk.,I. Ei.Fcrkw Jonathan Schlueter
Pti Ituswr.ti PAuKs Executive Director
'lin: tirnNnAKn
7¢xreunn, Ivi. •
1'kAnIMeI.i.l'R"m• kr,enm.~rinL .
\};v,iim Nnermce.r
1\',~5ubvl:7ur:tip.~kV.\I.~ii. .e,..:i., ;ui,-~.... :rt?~77::.i.i~'.•.:::_._.
. '
. . . j
, :'.i:...{'
. . . . i .;.,...i. I.'1; ~ n . .i. . 1:•:::,i • .I:::....
.
EC0NC?J%,1 [CALLIANCE
BREAKFAST FORUM SERIES
Presents:
"Bringing Opportunity to Oregon"
Featuring:
U.S. Senator Gordon Smith
On October 26, WEA's Breakfast Forum series will feature U.S.
Senator Gordon Smith as he addresses "Bringing Opportunity to
Oregon." Senator Smith will discuss the recently secured federal
appropriations and spending packages that will benefit several
transportation and public works projects on the Westside, including
the Washington County Commuter Rail project that will connect
Beaverton and Wilsonville, and the expansion of Henry Hagg Lake.
Senator Smith will describe these targeted investments, and how they will provide a
significant boost to Oregon's economy, and contribute to the livability of our
communities here on the Westside of the Portland metropolitan region.
Sponsored by.•
■ '
i 2n e III
WHEN: Thursday, October 26
7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
WHERE: Kingstad Center .
15450 S.W. Millikan Way
Beaverton, OR 97006
COST: $25.00 for members of the Alliance.
$35.00 for non-members and registrations
received after Friday, October 20.
TO REGISTER: E-mail: westside(~a,westside-alliance.org
Phone: 503.968.3100
;Cathy Wheatley~- Please repost ordinance no 0615 _~W w Page 1~
From: Cathy Wheatley
To: webteam C-uu c 1
L
Date: 11/2/2006 10:37:33 AM
Subject: Please repost ordinance no. 06-15
Nancy,
The following is for your information and to provide information about why this ordinance is being reposted
for my file and for the land use file.
Attached is a copy of ordinance no. 06-15. Please remove the old 06-15 and replace it with this one. The
exhibits were incorrectly marked in the ordinance recently posted. This error has been remedied with the
attached copy. (FYI - Exhibit D should have been E, and E should have been D. This is a scriveners error
and can be corrected because the ordinance identified Exhibit D as "a copy of the staff report including the
amending memorandum." These documents were included in the Council meeting packet.)
The ordinance will be reposted in the City Hall, Permit Center and the Library. Patty Lunsford advises she
mailed the Final Order with the document which should have been labeled Exhibit D.)
Thanks,
Cathy
Cathy Wheatley, Tigard City Recorder
639-4171 Ext. 2410
NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS:
cathy@tigard-or.gov
CC: Patty Lunsford
_
Cathy Wheatley - Tualatin Resource__Center-_
From: "Catherine WesY" <cwest@ttsd.k12.or.us> ~
To: <liz@tigard-or.gov>
Date: 10/9/2006 11:57:43 AM lo, / o. v(p
Subject: Tualatin Resource Center
Hello Liz,
The Tualatin Resource Center had a break-in last weekend. We are
temporarily closed due to a number of major safety problems that we have
had in the old Tualatin Elementary School. We are currently looking at
other options to relocate. We might actually end up in Tigard.
I am writing to ask to remove the Tualatin Resource Center from tomorrow's
City Council agenda. Because there are no services available at present,
it doesn't make sense to let the community know about us at this time.
I'm so sorry to take up space on your agenda and then not be able to use
it.
My sincere apologies to you and the council. Thank you so much for you
efforts to include us!
Catherine
Catherine West
Director
Tualatin Resource Center
19945 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Tualatin, Oregon 97062
Phone: 503-603-1588
Fax: 503-691-1642
www.workforceallianceonline.org/trc
« previous month November 2006 ' next_month
_ ~ .
Sunday ; Monday ; Tuesday !Wednesday~ Thursday Friday 2 Saturday ~
`2 73
~ i ~Toddler Time ~ €Family Storv lFree Leaf j
~ ! E iTime 'Disposal & Food i
iSteppin4 Back: `Drive ~
A Look at Local < E E
~ iHistOry
~ ;Doas and Tales!
~ .
......_............_.._i............................
I ~
;5 '6 7 <8 19
,10 E
i ;Preschool Storv Book Babies ~Toddler Time jTeen Book `Familv Storv ~
!Time ; !Discussion 'ITime
' 'Art Speaks Ca) 'GrOUD
~ ithe Librarv ~ (Veteran's Dav ; i
I iCa tain !Holidav I ~
:Doas and Tales! Underoants at
~
jthe Librerv
.
:12 13 ;14 ,15 116 17
' Preschool Storv Book Babies fToddler Time !Committee for ~Family Storv iFree Leaf ~
; ;Time ;Citizen {Time EDisaosal & Food :
~ Council Eswe:qo7., Dogs and Tales! ~Involvement ! ~Drive
;w/Lake ;
Council
~ Super Tuesdav!
Dayt- ~
! Edmonds.
Storyteller
,
f
_ '
19 20 21 t22 123 124 125 ~
~ iPreschool Stor Book Babies ~Toddler Time ;Thanksqivmq !Familv Storv `
~ 'Time ~ FHolidav Time ~
Workshop o s and Tales! ` '
I. Council meetina ' ;Thanksgivina '
E FHolidav ~
~
,
,
P...__-"`_"_.__....,......._.._.~.-.-.-~.- ~ ~....._._........~......,_.._.,..........W_..._~._...._.._,_...._....__......___..~.....
26 127 28 129 130
Preschool Storv Book Babies !Toddler Time
iTime
Pajama Storv !Book Discussion
'Kids' Book Club Time !GrOUp
; ;Business Council jDogs and Tales!
~ meetinq
~
_ ~ .
« previous month ` December 2006 ~ next month »i
" _ . _ : _ _ . ..-E
~ Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday; Thursday ; Friday : Saturday ;
;
f
!Familv Story €Free Leaf
; ;Time !Disposal & Food
? I ' ;Drive
` 10th Annual
~ ~ `Mitten Tree ~
Story Time I
`
13 ;4 17
~ `Preschool Story Book Babies !Toddler Time Family Story iTime 4Time
' :SuperTuesdav! ~ E 1
' i Xomedv 4 Da
Kids
',10 ;il 12 ~13 ;14 15
'Preschool Story
iBook Babies ;Toddler Time jTeen Book Family Story ' Time ;Discussion Time i E
~ ['13usiness Council ' ;Grouo
~ ~meetinq i
117 '18 19 1:20 21 i22 123 ~
iPreschool Story iBook Babies €Toddler Time [Committee for (~Familv Story
j ~
' ;Time k ;Citizen ;Time '
'Paiama Story `Involvement !
;Time
; ~Workshoo ' ~
. Council meetina ! ~
;
{
`24 ~ 25 ~ 26 27 28 29 30 ~
~ ~Christmas ~1 ;Winter Break Minter Break , I
~ ~Holidav ~
~ PIVC~ !Craft ~Movie i
,
S ,
,
P V
~ ~vu ~'c
~ G E € f
~ _ _ _ _'~.,.T_...~ _ _.~r~..._. J.n,-_....v___~ . .
( t
E E (
i
_ _ ~ . . _
Sc,h ed cz Le- c~ bQCem6* &c.,l,uxo bAKo,xcqAD
. ,9 v (iQ _
~ 2 nI iq rZuc~- Lu11Afv sS
" l
~-e uQ a3 13~7
previous month January 2007 next month >>i
- . _ _ E
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday ; Friday Saturday ~
~
!1 2 13 14 ~5 j6 f
€ f 1
` E
t ~
i
- ~
;7 i8 9 i10 jll 112
'Teen Book
; Wll ~G+~ Discussion E ` ~
iGrouo i ;
CP- tv MOhi
~ E
i 14 A5 16 ~f 17 19 j 20
,
~
I !
_
i21 24 125 126 27
128 29 30 131
i
I
~
~ Y, 0
'~'I ,
_
Cathy Wheatley - Fwd: Invitation Pa9e
1
- - -
From: Craig Prosser
To: Cathy Wheatley
Date: 10110/2006 3:18:19 PM
Subject: Fwd:lnvitation
Here is another pink sheet item for tonight.
Sheryl Huiras 10/10/2006 2:18:06 PM ,
Hi Craig:
We will be promoting our after-school programs with a kick-off assembly on Monday October 16th, at
Twality Middle School from 4:00pm - S:OOpm. I would like to send an invitation to you, the Mayor and the
City Council. We're having a variety of speakers and entertainment, such as the Blazer Dancers,
professional bike riders, college football players, and maybe the Oregon Symphony. The purpose of this
assembly is get the kids interested in participating in our positive, educational after school programs. The
Tigard Times and KATU 2 should be there for media coverage.
Could you please add this information to the pink sheet tonight for the council meeting. If anyone would
like to attend, or even say a few words, please let me know.
Thanks
Sheryl
Sheryl Huiras
ext. 2578
CC: Sheryl Huiras
6(sm)II0 0)3 cx-ie
TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
9000 SW DURHAM ROAD - TIGARD - OREGON - 97224
(503) 431.5518 - FAX (503) 431.5410
HTTP://THS.TTSD.K 12.OR.US/LEADERSHIP/HOME.HTML
CITY COUNCIL STUDENT REPORT: OCTOBER lO, 2006
STUDENT ENVOY: JASMINA DIZDAREVIC
2006-2007
"Leaving a Lasting I. ACADEMICS
Impression" a.) Conferences occurring October 19th and 2p1n
b.) Continual Improvement Plan Meetings just finished
Activities Director:
Judy Edtl II. ATHLETICS
President: a.) Cross Country.
)asmina Dizdarevic i.) October 11`h: THS vs. McMinnville (Away)
b.) Soccer:
Vice President: i.) Record on season: 2-2-1(W-L-D)
Lu Yang ii.) Last game, home game vs. Newberg, won 5-0
Activities Officer• iii.) League begins again today, THS vs. McMinnville at
Will MCLellarn ~ home at 7:00pm.
c.) Football:
Secretary: i.)Homecoming Game! October 12`h 7pm vs. Forest
Kaity Haworth Grove
ii.) October 27t6: THS vs. TuHS 7:00pm at TuHS
Treasurer:
Mark Schleyer IIL ARTS
Human Relations: a.) Choir:
Lisa Yanagawa i.) Planning for the Homecoming Dance
1.) Theme: Love Boat
Assemblies: ii.) Winter concert: December Sth at the Grotto
Kaitlyn Lange (7:00pm) and December 12th at the Deb Fennel
auditorium (7:30pm-9:00pm).
Spirit: b.) Band:
Ben Murphy i,) perform at HC game
Publicity: ii.) Next event: 7:50am - 2:50pm, October 2gtn
Ariel Gruver Marching Band at Evergreen High School.
Technology IV. ACTIVITIES:
Coordinator: a.) Homecoming Week
7ustin Karr i.) Sunday, October 8Ih: Deco Day
ii.) Monday, October 9t : Homecoming Assembly
iii.) Tuesday, October 10th: Powderpuff game
TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
9000 SW DuRHaM ROAD - TIGAitn - OxEGON - 97224
(503) 431.5518 - FAx (503) 431.5410
HTTP://THS.TTSD.K I Z.OR.US/LEADERSHIP/HOME.HTML
iv.) Thursday, October 12th: Homecoming Parade aod
Homecoming game
2006-2007 v.) Friday, October 13th: Homecoming Dance
"Leaving a Lasting b.) Halloween Rooms:
Impression" i.) October 313t: S:OOpm - 7:30pm
1.) Objective: provide a safe and fun place to
Activities Director: trick or treat...and a warm pl
y Edtl th
.
7d r28
c.) First Student Council Meetin g Thursda y,~~
President• i.) Many new clubs, glad to see the interest.
)asmina Dizdarevic
Vice President:
lu Yang
Activities Officer:
Will McLellarn
Secretary:
Kaity Haworth
Treasurer:
Mark Schleyer
Human Relations:
Lisa Yanagawa
Assemblies:
Kaitlyn Lange
Spirit:
Ben Murphy
Publicity:
Ariel Gruver
Technology
Coordinator:
Justin Karr
= AGENDA ITEM NO. 2- CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: October 10, 2006
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
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.
Tfiis is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Otegon's public meeting and tecords laws. All
written and oral testimony become part of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons wbo attend
or participate in City of T.igard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public _
record.
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF
Please Print CONTACTED
Name•
Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will
help the presiding officer pronounce:
Address
City
State Zip
Phone No.
Name•
Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will
help the presiding officer pronounce:
Address
City
State Zip
Phone No.
Name•
Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will
help the presiding officer pronounce:
Address
City State Zip
Phone No.
CITIZEN COMMUNICATION
~,.......o.,~..k.....~ m,~
, ~ .~.~..~,..a~..~.
~Cathy Wheatley - Tualatin Resource Center Pa e 1
_ . .~...~.._w. w. y.,... .,.__..W~ A ~..,__....m~ ...____9
✓4~ c, T~-~
From: "Catherine WesY" <cwest@ttsd.k12.or.us>
To: <liz@tigard-or.gov>
Date: 10/9/2006 11:57:43 AM )0, / D• vtp
Subject: Tuafatin Resource Center
Hello Liz,
The Tualatin Resource Center had a break-in last weekend. We are
temporarily closed due to a number of major safety problems that we have
had in the old Tualatin Elementary School. We are currently looking at
other options to relocate. We might actually end up in Tigard.
I am writing to ask to remove the Tualatin Resource Center from tomorrow's
City Council agenda. Because there are no services available at present,
it doesn't make sense to let the community know about us at this time.
I'm so sorry to take up space on your agenda and then not be able to use
it.
My sincere apologies to you and the council. Thank you so much for you
efforts to include us!
Catherine
Catherine West
Director
Tualatin Resource Center
19945 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Tualatin, Oregon 97062
Phone: 503-603-1588
Fax: 503-691-1642
www.workforceallianceonline.org/trc
Page 1 of 1
Bob Sesnon - Response to Mr. Frewing'c comments
From: Bob Sesnon
To: Craig Prosser
Date: 10/10/2006 3:50 PM
Subject: Response to Mr. Frewing'c comments
As I understand from reading the minutes from the September 26, 2006 Council meeting,` Mr. Frewing felt that
the city is using outdated valuation figures in the calculation of the Parks SDC fees.
The valuation methodology was updated approximately two years ago. The fee formula is based on the
property's market value and is determined by multiplying the existing fee by the average ot two indices, one
reflecting changes in development/construction costs and one reflecting changes in land acquisition. costs. It is
felt that this is a reasonable approach because the Parks SDC fee is roughly split between land acquisition and
land development components.
When the methodology was updated in late 2004 a consultant with expertise in this area was used to update
the market values for this area.
Bob
Robert H. Sesnon
Director of Financial and Information Services
City of Tigard
bobs@-Nard-or.go_v_
503.639.4171
file://C:\Documents and Settings\bobs\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00OO1.HTM 10/10%2006
CITY MANAGER
Citizen Communication Follow Up
For the October 10, 2006 Meeting
At the last City Council business meeting held on September 26, 2006, the following
individuals testified during Citizen Communications to the City Council.
Kristin Pxeston, 14955 SW 79h, Tigard, OR 97224 submitted a copy of a letter to the
Council, dated September 26, 2006. She noted that Council had expressed the hope that her
neighbothood would stay organized after their Local Improvement District had concluded.
She said they are still very intexested, as their street is xapidly being developed. They are in
communication with the City's Engineering Department but they want their priorities noted
in a public forum.
•'They do not want bike lanes on 790' Avenue. She understands that Council feels
their hands are tied by the 2002 Transportation System Plan. When that group is
reconvened, they request that their neighborhood be represented to xeview those
issues.
• They continue to oppose planter strips.
• They want to see traffic cakning methods used on SW 79`h Avenue. There don't
seem to be any planned.
City Manager Prosser said he would pass along her letter and would be interested in hearing
from staff on these issues.
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR, said he raised the issue at the August Fifth
Tuesday Meeting about the timeliness and amount of change in the Patks SDC fees. He
hasn't heard back from staff yet and would appreciate hearing from them. He said his
problem is that the City is always behind in pxoperty valuation for Parks SDC fees and is not
getting the right amount of money. He said the entite expense of the Ciry Council could be
covered with the amount of money collected by making timely forecasting changes. City
Manager Prosser noted that it would not covex the cost of City Council ox any operating cost
because that is prohibited by law. He said it is governed by state law and thexe is a process
we need to go through. City Managet Prossex said he did not think the law allowed for
prospective forecasts of land value but he will double check on that.
Mr. Frewing also noted that the City approved a development pexmit because of the City's
failure to take final action before 120 days after completeness of the application. He said the
Tigard Code timelines don't allow much time. His concern is that there should be, in every
case, time allowed for a potential appeaL He asked that there be a directive to the Planning
staff that when they are not able to satisfy the 120 day limit because of lack of information
from the applicant, fox example, they ask for enough time so the City's final decision can be
made after an appeal and still fall within the approved time. Mayor Dixksen suggested that
Council consider what Mr. Frewing said and if anyone feels that it is a concern they can
bring it up for a future agenda discussion.
I\ADM\Cathy\CCM\Citizen Communicauon Eollow up\061010.doc
~
' MEMORANDUM
D.
TO: Honorable Mayor & Ciry Council Agenda Item No. 3•
For Agenda of october 10. 2006
FROM: Cathy eatley, City Recorder
RE: Three-Month Council Meeting Calendar
DATE: September 20, 2006
Regularly scheduled Council meetings are maxked with an astexisk
October
10* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
19* Tuesday Council Woxkshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
24* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
31 Tuesday Fifth Tuesday Council Meeting - Cancelled.
November
14* Tuesday Council Meeting with Lake Oswego City Council - 6:30 pm, Lake Oswego City Hall
10 Friday Vetexan's Day Holiday - City Hall Closed
21* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
28* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 630 pm, Town Hall
23-24 Thurs-Fri Thanksgiving Holiday - Ciry Hall Closed
December
12* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
19* Tuesday Council WoYkshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
25 Monday Christmas Holiday - Ciry Hall Closed
26* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
iAatlmMlty wunciR3-manth calentlar (or 10.70-08 cc mtg.tloc
Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2006 Agenda Item No.
Meeting of Oc-la~e,, /0, aQ~4
Meeting Date: October 10, 2006 Meeting Date: October 17, 2006 Meeting Date: October 24, 2006
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: Gus Duenas Greeter: iGreeter:
Materials Due @ 5: September 26, 2006 Materials Due @ 5: October 3, 2006 Materials Due @ 5: October 10, 2006
Newton out
Study Session Workshop Agenda Study Session
Executive Session - CCDA MOU's - Joint Meeting with Loaves & Fishes Senior Exec. Session to discuss Real Property
Tom C. - 30 min. Center Board - Loreen - 30 min. - SI Purchase - Dennis K. - 15 min.
Briefing on Outreach & Education mtngs. With UR Joint Meeting with the Budget Committee - Bob - Audio/Visual Designs - Gary E. - 30 min.
Dist. Property & Business Owners concerning 60 min. - SI
Land Use and Design Guidelines - Tom C. - 10 min. Presentation of Tigard Community Profile - Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda 2006 Edition - Tom C. - PPT - 15 min. LCRB - Water Bldg. Arch. Svcs. Contract - Brian R.
LCRB - Award Contract for Hydrogeologist Planned Development Code Amendment Establish a CAC for the Highway 99W Corridor
of Record - B. Rager Workshop - PPT - Dick B. - 30 min. ImprovemenbMgmt Plan and Appointing Members
LCRB - Award Contracts for Engineering Svcs. Enhanced Citizen Participation Update - Liz - Gus. D. - RES
- Vannie N. 30 min. - SI Adopt CCAC By-laws - Tom C.
Business Meeting Business Meeting
THS Student Envoy Jasmina Dizdarevik - 10 min. Proclamation - National Magic Week
Citizen Comm. - Tualatin Resource Center Proclamation - Make a Difference Day
Annual Update - Catherine West, Dir. - SI - 5 min. Chamber President Ralph Hughes - 10 min.
Update on 41 st Brigade by the American Legion Silver Safety Award - L. Mills - 5 min.
Cathy W. - 15 min. Police Department Annual Report - Alan O. - 30 min
Res. in Suport of Public Safety Levy - Bill D. 10 min. County Services for Homeless - Bill D. - 15 min.
Update on Proposed WCCLS Operational Planned Development Code Amendment
Levy - Margaret B. - 15 min. Legis. Public Hearing - Dick B. - PPT - 45 min.
Commuter Rail Update - Gus - 20 min. TMC Section on Explanatory Statements for
Tigard Triangle LID - Prelim. Engineer's Report - any Initiative or Referendum by Petition
PPT - MOTION - Gus. D. - 20 min. - Cathy W. 10 min. - ORD
Formation of Sewer Reim. Dist. #39 (Hill View/102) Repeal Ordinance No. 00-33 - Relating to Ballot
PPT, Info Public Hearing- Gus D. RES - 10 min. Measure 7, which did not go into effect - 5 min.
Cach Creek Area Annexation - ORD 3rd Quarter Goal Update - Craig P. - 10 min.
Tom C. - 20 min.
Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 125 min. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: 165 min. Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 130 min.
Time Left: 10 min. Time Left: 35 min. Time Left: 5 min.
10/3/2006 1
Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2006
Meeting Date: October 31, 2006 Meeting Date: November 14, 2006 Meeting Date: November 21, 2006
Meeting Type/Time: 5th Tuesday/7 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Lake Oswego Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m.
Location: Water Building Aud. Location: LO City Hall Location: City Hall
Greeter: Greeter: Greeter:
Materials Due @ 5: Materials Due @ 5: Materials Due @ 5: November 7, 2006
Fifth Tuesday Meeting Study Session Workshop Agenda
Meeting Cancelled
Consent Agenda
Business Meeting
IWB meeting with Tigard and Lake Oswego
City Councils at Lake Oswego City Hall,
380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego 6:00 p.m.
Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 0 min. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: min.
Time Left: min. Time Left: min.
10/3/2006 1
Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2006
Meeting Date: November 28, 2006 Meeting Date: December 12, 2006 Meeting Date: December 19, 2006
Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m.
Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall
Greeter: Greeter: Greeter:
Materials Due @ 5: November 14, 2006 Materials Due @ 5: November 28, 2006 Materials Due @ 5: December 5, 2006
Study Session Study Session Workshop Agenda
Discuss Potential Jaywalking Ord- Bill D. - 15 min. Ciry Attorney Review - 30 min. - Craig P. - SI Joint Meeting with Budget Committee - Tom I. -
40 min. (or January workshop) - SI
Council Goal 4rth Quarter Update -
Craig P./Joanne - 5 min.
Consent Agenda Consent Agenda
Business Meeting Business Meeting
Chamber President Ralph Hughes - 10 min. THS Student Envoy Jasmina Dizdarevik -10 min.
Finalization of Sewer Reim. Dist. #32 (Fern St.) Quarterly Emergency Management Program
Info. Public Hearing, PPT, Gus D. - RES - 10 min. Update - Mike L. 10 min.
Quarterly Emergency Management Program Habitat-Friendly Development Provisions - Com-
Update - Mike L.- 20 min. prehensive Plan Amend./Development Code
Amend. - PP - ORD - Legis. Public Hearing -
Tom C. - 60 minutes
Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 40 min. Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 80 min. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: 45 min.
Time Left: 95 min. Time Left: 55 min. Time Left: 155 min.
10/3/2006 1
Agenda Item # 3 ' ,2° aL
Meeting Date Oct. 10, 2006
LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Award of Contract for H dro eolo ist of Record
PrePared BY: ~ Brian Ra er DePt Head APProval: hxl_~ CitY Mgr APProval: l/l
ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
Should the LCRB authorize the award of a contract for a hydrogeologist of record?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Sta$ recommends the Local Contract Review Board approve, by motion, the award of a contract to
Groundwater Solutions, Inc., and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Groundwater
Solutions, Inc., to serve as the City's Hydrogeologist of Record on various projects, including the City's aquifer
storage and recovery (ASR) program.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
• The City's aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) program has been successful and there is an on-going need for
annual operational support and the evaluation of new sites for ASR wells.
• To expand the Department's capability to meet current project demands, staff proposes the selection of a
hydrogeologist of record capable of promptly providing:
- Operational support for the ASR well system
- Analysis and evaluation of potential additional ASR well sites
- Design of ASR wells
• Awarding a contract to one firm will reduce the amount of staff time expended on the Request for Proposal
process and allow staff to concentrate their efforts on monitoring and expanding the City's ASR system.
Contracting with consultants through the Request for Proposal process for each project is cumbersome,
time-consuming, and expensive. The selection of a hydrogeologist of record would allow the City to
evaluate a contractor's qualifications and capacity on an annual basis versus a per project basis. It also
guarantees access to a hydrogeological firm, as the City's projects would be given priority.
o On September 21, 2006, two hydrogeologist firms submitted their proposals in response to a Request for
Proposal to provide ASR support services. Each proposal was separately evaluated by a panel of three staff
and it was determined that Groundwater Solutions, Inc. (GSI) has the qualifications, capabilities, staffing and
experience necessary to provide the services the City needs. Staff recommends awarding the contract to
GSI.
• Projects assigned to GSI will be on an as-needed basis. Once a project is assigned, GSI will prepare and
submit a cost proposal to the City for review and approval.
• The contract will be for an initial term of one year after Local Contract Review Board approval and may be
renewed for four additional one-year terms.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Reject all proposals and prepare a Request for Proposal for each project. However, this process is not cost
effective and may result in project delays since staff time would be spent on requesting, evaluating, and
awarding separate proposals.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Tigard Beyond Tomorrow, Urban and Public Services
Water and Stormwater Goal #1- "Actively participate in regional development of drinking water sources
and adequate, innovative funding mechanisms to develop those sources for Tigard users while exploring
local options for water reuse and groundwater source."
ATTACHMENT LIST
None.
FISCAL NOTES
Funding for annual operational support of ASR exists in the Water Fund; there is $57,000 budgeted in FY
'06/'07 for this task. Funding for ASR expansion studies and design work exists in the Water CII' fund;
there is $400,000 budgeted in FY '06/'07 for this effort. Staff expects these funds will adequately cover the
cost of these services.
Agenda Item # R ' ~ " b
Meeting Date October 10, 2006
LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Award of Contracts for Traffic and Transportation Engineering Services on an as-Required Basis
Prepared By: Vannte NMen Dept Head ACJC" pproval: ,7~_- City Mgr rlpproval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve two contract awards for Traffic and Transportation Engineering
Services on an as-required basis?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Local Contract Review Board approve, by motion, the contract awards to the following Traffic Engineering
firms:
- Kittelson & Associates
- DKS Associates
The services provided by the firms will be on an as-needed basis for the provision of study, analysis, evaluation and
design of transportation system and traffic related issues.
Staff also requests that the City Manager be authorized to execute contracts with the firms for projects up to and
including $50,000. Projects exceeding $50,000 will be submitted for contract awards by the Local Contract Review
Board prior to commencement of work.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
• Contract awards to the two firtns will reduce the amount of staff time expended on Request for Proposal processes
and enhance the Capital Construction & Transportation Division's ability to meet the heavy project workload in
Fiscal Year 2006-07 and beyond. Contracting with consultants through the Request for Proposal process for each
project is cuxnbersome, time-consumuig, and expensive.
• To expand the Division's capability to meet current project demands, staff proposes pre-qualification of traffic
engineering firms capable of prompdy responding to provide engineering assistance on traffic signal design, traffic
safery evaluation, transportation system evaluation, traffic impact study, geometric design and other traffic related
issues.
• On August 1, 2006, four traffic engineering firtns submitted their proposals in response to a Request for Proposal
to provide traffic and transportation engineering services. Each proposal was separately evaluated by six staff and
the two highest-rated firms, Kittelson & Associates and DKS Associates, were invited to make presentations to
staff to further elaboxate on their proposals.
• Based on the evaluation of the firms' proposals and presentations, staff has determuied that both firtns have the
capabilities, staffing, experience and compensation requirements sufficient to perform the required services. Staff
recommends award of the contracts to both firms.
• The contracts will be for an initial term of two years after Loca1 Contract Review Board approval and may be
renewed for two additional one-year terms. Below are some potential projects approved for FY 2006-07 that may
be performed by the firms:
- Ash Avenue Connection Feasibility Study
- Hall Boulevard Crosswalk
- Traffic Improvement Analysis in the vicuury of Greenburg Road, North Dakota Street, Tiedeman Avenue and
Tigard Street
- Durham Road/108`h Avenue Signalization
- Hall Boulevard at McDonald Street Right-Turn Lane
- Traffic Light Installation on Main Street (at Tigard Street)
• Projects assigned to the firms will be on an as-needed basis. Once a project is assigned to a firm, the firm will
prepare and submit a cost proposal to the City for review and approval. To further streamline the process and
expedite project implementation, staff recommends that the City Manager be authorized to execute contracts with
the firms for projects up to and including $50,000. Projects exceeding $50,000 will be submitted for contract awards
by the Local Contract Review Board prior to commencement of work.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Reject all proposals and prepare a Request for Proposal for each project. However, the process is not cost effective
and may cause delay to project delivery schedules due to staff time spent on requesting, evaluating, and awarding
separate proposals.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
The proposed projects indicated above meet the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Transportation and Traffic Goals of
"Improve Traffic Safery" and "Improve Traffic Flov~".
ATTACHMENT LIST
None
FISCAL NOTES
Award of the contracts will not require funding until projects are assigned to the selected firms. Funding for
assigned projects will be through the respective project budgets.
-1-±P-tNn n ~4 ~Wco-ad.
-1 u Pa:6e- thcc*
aJ%a la-0, r$ ~
~ Agenda Item # Meeting Date Octobex 10. 2006
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title U12date on the 41s` Brigade by the American Legion
Pxepaxed By: Carol Kragerv Dept Head Approval: Ciry Mgr Appxoval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Council will be updated on what has been done to pxovide suppoxt for the soldiexs and fatnilies of the U.S. Arniy
National Guard 41" Brigade.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No Council action is requixed on this information briefing.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Mark Poling, 2nd Vice Coinmandex and Service Officer of the American Legion Post 158 in TigaYd, will
address the Council regaYding what has been done to provide support for the soldiers and fanulies of the
41" Brigade since the Tigard City Council's adoption of the Brigade in Maxch, 2006. Mr. Poling will also
advise the Council of upcoming acriviries by Post 158 on behalf of the 41" Brigade. He will pxovide a shoxt
PowerPoint presentation.
Michelle Stanley, Family Readiness Group Coordinator of the U.S. Army Narional Guaxd 41" Brigade,
will address the Council on the acriviries and status of the deployed soldiers.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not applicable
COLTNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
2006 Council Goa1- Improve Communication and Relationships with Citizens
ATTACHMENT LIST
None
FISCAL NOTES
Not applicable
Agenda Item # ~J
Meeting Date October 10. 2006
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Ciry Of Tigard, Oxegon
Issue/Agenda Tide Resolution in Support of the Washington County Public Safety Measure
Pxepared By: Alan Orr Dept Head Appxoval: City Mgr Approval: (22
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council approve a xesolurion supporting the passage of the upcoming Washington County Public Safety
Measure to maintain countywide public safety progxams (Ballot Measure 34-127)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since this is an election issue staff cannot make a xecommendation.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
• The purpose of the levy is to maintain public safety services countywide such as jail, special enforcement teams,
prosecutors, juvenile counselors, probation and parole services, emergency communications and emergency
shelteYS for victims of domestic violence such as Tigard's Good Neighbor Center.
• Wlvle City staff cannot advocate for the levy on work time, elected officials and candidates may. The Ciry may
pxovide educational information about the levy to pxovide voters facts with which they can use to decide how
to vote.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Council may decide not to support the Public Safety Measure.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Vision Task Force Goal #1, Sttategy #6: Public Safety specifically addxesses crime and public safety concerns through
partneYShips.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment A-Draft Resolution.
FISCAL NOTES
The levy is at a fixed rate of 42 cents per $1,000 assessed value. A home with an average assessed value (not market
value) of $192,000 would pay $81 in 2007-2008.
IAetlm\ce1hyVartnsQ008\caunci1 epenCa item summary sheet 06 • June revision.AOc
Measure 34-727
, ~ ~ Levy Rates 8c Scope '&ffjb°
'T'
• Four Years
- • Fiscal 2007-08 through 2010-11
• Cost: 42 cents /¢1,000 Av
Washington County Public Safet • Total: $18.2 mil / yr or $72.9 mil
Measure 34-127
Local Option Levy, November 2006
Measure 34127 Measure 34-127
~ Levy Impacts l~d ~ Public Safety Levy - Background
rT-
Positions: Supports 122 of 780 FTE Current levy:
Breakdown: 51 tertified deputies, 6 DA's, • Expired on June 30, 2006
11 probation and parole officers • Authorized at.43cents/$1,000 AV
Jail Beds: Funds 108 of 787 total beds •$13.9 m per year for 5 yrs
Funding: Levy Provides 170/o of the
Integrated Public Safety Funding
Serves all Washington County residents.
Measure 34-127 Measure 34-127
Countywide Justice System Operating Aft Countywide Justice System Funding
~ Expenditures FYo6 ($89.im) Sources FYo6 ($89.im)
emorpenry Sarvicu
S% proveMlon. 7uvanlle Faas ~ms anA Vanahlas
Probatlon and PasP a ~naim. sarvkas Ganarsl Fund/Sbb 1^:r
Inuraratlon PunA, Combine 3%
Supervlslon 1=% bqy Mbc.
eve =w
Law [iAorcmnant
Sarvicu
Snta Punds
10%
inprpli[lon
Groqrems CouR Sanins enE Gananl FunE
Crlminal Vrowcutlon VuDlic SaTaty Levy 81%
39% 11% 17%
1
Measure 34-127 Measure 34-127
~ Public Safety Levy Results ~ ~ Public Safety Levy Results
'~...d
• Reduced Forced Prisoner Releases from 100/week to . Clamped down on Property Crimes - Property
less than 5! Crimes decreased by 13% per 1,000 population
• Kept Serious Offenders off the streets until trial - more
prosecutions, iower cost • Continued an 8-year Decline in the Juvenile Crime
. Attacked Meth Lab Productlon - 75 labs in 2003, only 6 in Rate through highly effective early intervention,
2005 preventative programs
• Provided Shelters and Professional Assistance for pomestic
vioience vietims • Hired enough Prosecuting Attorneys to Ensure that
. eoiscered speciai weapons, orug, zo rnett, & Gang [ncer- Offenders Who are Arrested are actually Prosecuted
jurisdictional Enforcement Teams in a timely manner
Measure 34127 Measure 34-727
41111111111
Public Safety Levy Results Public Safety Levy Facts
~~.s'
. Set up a Prisoner Transport Service to the County Jail so depudes Rignt crioNty
and city police stay on patrol • Funds are dedipbed to govemme~K's ifl job, public Safety
- 2005 transports: Tigard 98, Tualatin 111, SherwooA 64
Not New/Additlonal Tax
• Provided Excepdonal Traffic Safety Patrols - State DUII Agency • Continues existing levy and budget levels
Of the Year, 4 yrs in a row Fiscally Sound
• Hired Crime Scene Techs that Free-Up Deputlcs and City ~rv~~lN ~`i~n9 ~x rate, while providing more
Police to Field Calls for Service
Effectlve
• ReWined Criminalists Uwt Improve the Quality of Scientiflt cn5~n9~ns our fight against drugs, ID theft, and violent
Investlgations Countywide
Good Govemment
&~re-af~~ Publlc safety, minimizes costly judicial backlogs
Measure 34127 Measure 34-127
~ Public Safety Levy Summary Public Safety Levy Summary ~
~~.,,,F
i
~Y.
Current Service Levels . . . ~•J
~ ' ' •F~ "
42 s
~ Combat the growing
meth problem.
at a Lower Cost
>
.
,..~P
~
C
Measure 34-127 Measure 34127
Public Safety Levy Summary Helps fund s 9ecial enforcement
teams servin all citizens . . .
.
~ , a.
: Minimizethe wf
I early release of
EFT
offenders. I, - '
i
Major Crimes, SWAT, Fraud
I 1 ~`~'1 ~and ID Theft, Gangs and
Narcotics enforcement
teams.
.I
Measure 34-127 Measure 34-127
ale
~
ety Levy Summary K Public Safety Levy Summary ~
Public Saf ~
~
.
Victims' assistance and
emergency shelter for Continue juvenile
women and children programs tbat have
who are victims of reduced crime every
domestic violence. year for the past eight
years.
. . r
~
per 1,000 population
Orapan BaKhmvk 61
Benchmarks 20
00
' -
so
A%F
- - - - • - .
7 7888 1999 2000 2001 2002 2007
-o-Statewide -c-Urban
mr.
1
a
es per 1,000 population mes per 1,000
Q a.pon e.xhmerw eie aaym eendhmarM alc
. . " ' "
:00 p ' _ . .
0
7 1e9e Iese zooo 2001 zoot zooa 7 lese Ises xooo 2001 2002 zaw
-a- Statewide -&-Urban fl- Statewide -6- Urban
.mn~~ Resnn~ ~b ~ /+mW~v+*/4~+m~nrowpwub0a~nsb
Measure 34-127
~
Washington County ~ The Levy Deserves YOUR
~•~r~` Support
Public Safety
Local Option Levy
Washington County is a safe place and
S? continuing this levy
QU@5t101'1 will help us keep it that way.
4
Agenda Item # ~
Meeting Date 10/10/06
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Ciry Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Presentation on Measuxe 34-126-Local Option L= to Maintain CounWwide Library-
Setvices
Prepaced By: Margaret Barnes Dept Head Approval: City Mgx Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Libraty staff will provide an informational presentation about the Washington County Cooperative Libxary Services
(WCCLS) levy for library operating expenses that will appeax on the Nov. 7 ballot.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None-Informational item.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
e evy ha-s een propose o main rary services anow some raries to restore services
including hours of operation, some children's programs and book purchases.
~ The fout-year levy would run through 2011.
• If the levy does not pass, hours and current service levels may be reduced.
• Since county funding shifted from a twenty-year library serial levy to the county's general fund, the
percent of Tigard's total library funding from the county has decxeased from 77 percent to 46 percent.
OTHER ALTERNATNES CONSIDERED
None-Informational item.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Vision Task Force Goa1 #3: Adequate facilities are available fox efficient delivery of life-long learning programs and
services for all ages.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment A-Power Point Presentation
FISCAL NOTES
The proposed levy is for a fixed rate of 17¢ per $1,000 of assessed value. A total of $29.5 million would be levied
over fout years. Ownexs of a home with an average assessed value of $192,000 would pay $33 in additional taxes in
2007-08 or $2.75/month.
iladm\cathyVOrtn5\2008\mundl apenAa item summary sheet 06 • juna revision.doc
~
~ ~ `~i~, •
02'Overview:
■ Four-year levy (FY07-08
- through FY10-11)
Measure 34-126 ■ Fixed rate of 17 cents per
$1000 of assessed value
Local Option Levy to Maintain • ■$33 in additional taxes in
2007-08 avera e home
~\aotao eo Countywide Library Services ( 9
_ e.` ~ . l~b~,, assessed value of
FY07-08 - FY10-11 $192,000)
. . ~
■$29.5 million over 4 years
e e~
~~~00. ModeBo
• •
Which libraries Which libraries
N
would be funded? would be funded?
■ Washington County Banks Beaverton
1!F
Cooperative Library Services Cedar Mill Comelius
(WCCLS) has provided Forest Grove Garden Home
funding for public library Hillsboro North Plains
operations linking together ciry Sherwood Tigard
40 years.
and communiry libraries for 30 TualaUn West Slope
'
40
.
.
Measure
WCCLS Funding-Countywide WCCLS Funding-Tigard
+O~p~lOp 6•p0
■ Countywide-WCCLS a+ ■ In 1998, WCCLS ~
funds an average of provided 77% of the
580 of local library Tigard Library's
operating expenses ~ ( ~ operating expenses. s►~, ~ 1~
■ Compared to 1998, 11 ~p~~ ■ In 2005-06, WCCLS
when WCCLS funded ~0 • N0t10~ provided 46% of
an average of 80°h of Tigard's funding.
local library operating
expenses.
1
\
~
~ Why IS I
the levy proposed? M7Maintain urrent services:
ditional reductions
■ Maintain current local book purchases
library services rams.
■ Support literacy current local
programs for children ervices through
` ■ Purchase books ~BR~y 2011, allow some libraries
to restore previously
reduced hours.
. .
Population and Support literacy
library use programs for children:
; ■ Over 17,000
children participate
in the annual
summer reading
program designed
■ Library checkoufs are estimated to increase to sustain reading
43% during the 4year teRn of the levy, retention between
topping 11.5 million in 2011. school years.
. .
Support literacy Purchase books:
programs for children:
■ Library-based literacy ■ Levy purchase funds would
books and
programs for other materials
preschoolers are
designed to increase available to
the number of children residents through all
entering school "ready Q' ~NCCLS libraries.
to read." ,
2
. ~
.
. easure
If the levy passes, the If the levy passes, the
Tigard Library would: Tigard Library would:
■ Restore open hours ■ Fund children's .
from 55 to 62 hours ` literacy programs
per week. aimed at teaching
more children to
read before entering
schooL
Measure . .
If the levy passes, the What happens if the
Tigard Library would: levy does not pass?
■ Current service levels
would be reduced as
a Allocate book funds ~'t ~ • determined by local
to meet increases in [III
libraries.
population and use.
■ Hours and book
purchases are likely to
be reduced.
.
For more information:
■ Log on to our website
www.WlLlnet.wccls.lib.or.us
■ Ask your local librarian
■ Call WCCLS at
f',,~petee p~., (503)846-3222
.
3
Agenda Item # 77
Meeting Date October 10, 2006
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Ciry Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Tide Commuter Rail Project U12date
Prepared By: A.P. Due as Dept Head Okay ~ City Mgr Okay CP
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Informational briefing on the status of the Commuter Rail project, the schedule of work this fall and in the spring of
2007, and discussion on the safety issues requiring the proposed median at Main Stxeet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No Council action is required on the informational briefing.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Majar construction will begin on the Washington County Corrunuter Rail this fall. This 14.7-mile project is one of the
first suburb-to-suburb projects in the country and will provide a critical public transportation alternative to better serve
the Westside corridor, connecting the cities of Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin and Wilsonville.
In partnership with Washington Counry, TriMet, Portland & Western Railroad and the four local cities, Washington
County Commuter Rail will provide weekday service every 30 minutes during the morning and afternoon rush hours.
Four of the five stations will have park and ride facilities with approxunately 800 spaces. One of those stations with
park and ride facilities will be located in downtown Tigard. At the Beaverton Transit Center, riders will be able to
connect to MAX and travel to Hillsboro, downtown Portland or the Portland International Airport without
transferring. The commuter trains axe expected to begin operation in the fall of 2008.
The first major phase of construction is expected to begin in late October 2006 and is scheduled to be complete in
November 2006. This work involves the complete reconstruction of appro~nately 14 miles of railroad track necessary
to accommodate commuter rail's train speeds of 60 mph. A highly specialized machine called the P-811 will be used to
do the track reconstruction work. At nearly 1,500 feet in length, the P-811 machine uses modified rail cars and
specialized equipment to simultaneously dismantle existing railroad track while constructing new track. The P-811 will
begin its work in Wilsonville and work north towards Beaverton.
'I'here will be road closures at the railroad crossings (Durham Road, Bonita Road, Hall Boulevard, Main Street,
Tiedeman Avenue, and North Dakota Street) during the construction period this fall and again during the spring of
2007. The initial closures will occur during the first week of October as the new rails are placed alongside the existing
track in preparation for the P-811 work scheduled later in the month. Up to a one-hour closure at Main Street and up to
10 minutes at Hall is expected during this preparatory work. As the P-811 moves through the City of Tigard, the
closures will last approximately two hours at each intersection over a one or two day period. The specific days and times
for these two-hour intersection closures have not been detertnined. The construction team, in coordination with the
cities, will provide as much advance notice as possible about intersection closures and detour routing to minimi7e traffic
disruptions. Advanced notification of this work will be given to nearby businesses, residents and other affected
stakeholders.
T'he second major phase of construction will begin in early 2007. Street crossings will be reconstructed during this
period and will require weekend closure at each street crossing. Advance notices will be provided and appxopriate
detours will be established to minimi7e traffic disruption. Construction of the commuter rail stations, park and rides and
a train maintenance faciliry in Wilsonville will also begin in early 2007. The Tigard station and the adjacent 120-space
park and ride will be located adjacent to the existing Tigard Transit center to provide easy access to five bus lines. It will
be designed to complement the current urban renewal efforts in downtown Tigard.
To address safety issues at the Main Street and Bonita Road railroad crossings, TriMet and ODOT Rail have proposed
medians to prohibit left-turns at these crossings. The initial feedback from Council on these medians is that the Bonita
Road median is acceptable, but that the Main Street median is not. Modifications to the Main Stteet crossing will have
to be finalized soon so that crossing orders can be issued for reconstruction at all the crossings within the City of
Tigard. A TriMet representative will be present at the meeting to discuss the safety concerns requiring the placement of
the median at Main Street.
OTHER ALTERNATNES CONSIDERED
None
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
The Commuter Rail upon completion supports the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Transportation and Traffic goals of
"Improve Traffic Flow" and "Improve Traffic Safery" by providing an alternative to automobile travel.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Drawing showing proposed median on Main Street at the vicinity of the railroad crossings.
FISCAL NOTES
There are no costs to the City regarding the upcoming work at the crossings. The City will be providing funding to the
Commuter Rail project to upgrade the platform at the commuter Rail station. The budgeted amount for FY 2006-07 is
$100,000 in the Facility Fund. The actual cost will be determuied after the work has been completed.
i:\eng%guskcounGl apenCa summeriesknew egenda summary fortnah10.10.08 commutar rail project update.doc
de + € D
~
F"
~ ~~i .a~, ~ ? ~
~ , > • ~ ~ ,~„r ~ ~ s, ~
~
~ }
~
V ~ ~
j.. 0 ~
• j < B
~ e r ~s ~ ~ +R tt ~ E', e •...n. _ _ f«7T
r-
~ ~~p ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ • f
gwS2.
~~'q a ~ef~ a M • •
AN"i
~ r S ~ ~ Y~ ~a ~
~ _
_
ter
- :LL==Project U-pdate=~ ~==___=-V=~-~=~~~-=
_~o~= _O n e=of-t h rr_st_ b u.r b-to-s u:b:u-r_b-co.-m m u:te r---
=--~-=rail=p,ro=:etsyin_th_e_cn:try=r~ -
==_~oo =14: 7=m:i I~e=p:roj_ect _co_n:ri~e;cts~ci_ti:es ~o_f ~ _ ~
-~=Bea~erton, Tigard, Tualatin~and W_ _~:Iso:n~ill:e
mo~ W_i.l:l p~r_ovide=weekday~ser_vi_ee-ever_y~3_0~
_--=~==~minutes-dLLu_ri:ng= morni_ngEan d~a:fte_rno~on~_r_us_h -
il1=s:h:a:re~tNe~tra_cks-wi:fh=f_e:i~g:h:t=fra:i:ns_r=_un
- -
by =Po~r-_t1_a~nd=&=V11_estern ld-~V~
1
.=Ke.y_
___~o~ Fi:ve -stat_~ons will_be constru
cted._
- - - -
•%.--Four_of=fve will:have_park.-=anci ride facil~t[es~~_
=App_r_oxirnafely-~8_00-pa_rki ng=spaces wiif-be = - ~ -
- - - - - -
oo~ =Ti:gard=station wili have 120 spa:ce,pa_rking=lot
--ooo Comm-uter-_tr__ai:ns wrll~trav__el up_to 6=0 mrles=___
= ___P=e~_r ho_u:r-~ ~ - -
=~oo Approx~i.mately=f.4 m:iles=of raiLroa:d=tr-a~ek-=-- _
_e=recdnstr-u_cted=to-a_ccommodafe=-==----
- = wi:ll b
-
__=Constru-ctio-n=Be_g-i=ns=~~__»_
_~-=-AOA-=Fi=r-st-m~aj=o:r-=p_h-a-s~e-b=eg=ins=l:a:te_=0_ctob:er` A_
20_06--=-- _ - - -
__-A~-:1-4=m:i:l=e-s-ofi:l:r_da-d-tra:e.ks=w-i=l:l~b.e- =
_ =:reco_nstru=cte:d==-
_ 00~ A s.peci:a:l:i-zed=m-ach:i:n-e-call_e=:d-the=P= - -
-81=1 wi_t1~be=used_ to =do--the-track== -
- - ~ _
recon:structi_on_ work
-
-Work will_begin=in .Wilson_vil:Ie and _
-
- -
. proceed_north=tow_ards=Beave_rton
2
Con=stru_cti=on-Im.--_acts -
p_
:~o~~ Roa_d closure_s a_t~ railroad _cros_sings in
_ .T_i.ga rd- _ - - : - _ - _
- - -
- - - - - -
_ Ao~ Up t-o_-two=hour_ctosures-when the=_P 811
= __comes th_r_ough= _ - - -
Cro.ssings=a_ffected
= 000 Durham-Roa.d-~_
- - = se0-=6=o n i:ta= Ro=a:d=~--= ~ -
-
_ = o'o Hail= Boul=evar.d=-
- - -o - -
-0o~_Main-Str_eet_=-==__
- iedema:n=Aven:ue
No:r_th-Dakata-Street _
811 Tr
_ Y ~.rJ ~ ~ RwrJA -
~a YF~'z'i iT . I ~~h ~Y
i
r ~
~
Up to 1,500 feet in length
3
-P_811- _ - - _ ,
r
P-811
= - )r~~,
-
• ~ : ~ " - ' = - =
_
Constr-ucti=ori=Sched=u_I_e _
_oooPlace:me-nt-of=new=raif=alon:gsid_e~
- ~ _ _
- - = - -
==existing t_r-acks _ e:arly=0ctober_2~0_0_6_
~=~o~ work_=-1:ate=0ctobe:r~-20~0-6=
= - -
Reconstructi_on=of=rawi:iroa:d=cros:sin:g_s
- -
- = _ -
- _ - -
= a:_r_=y =20~0_7_
=oo~ P-roject-co_m:p~lefio:n_i:n=.mid
--~o~ Trarns=begin -operatio_n--=f-_all 200_8--
4
P _ osed- =:Media-ns
r
op - - = =
_-~o~_Safety-=`issues at. crossin=gs__ - - _ ~
- - - - - - -
~o~ _Tra_i_n speeds_(-botfi__com=muter_and-freight)_=-
-~~-Likelihood of vehicfes forced-_to stop on_
- - - _ - - _ _ =
~ =.tr-acks . _ : - - - -
-
-
_~AO~ As a resul_t, m=edian_s a:re proposed_-=at__
_
-
two _
-rarlroad cross_ing_I_oca_tions_
- ..~o~=Bonita=Road
- - -
0 0-_ -
_ = m _Main_Street - ~ -
~ ~ -
Bo-fita=Road=Crossin- _
- - 9= =
_-==P_ro
Medians ~Banitai -
- f•. Nrfr i I
- --=-A - ~y ~ ` =
74th Avenue
5
.
_ M a i_n S-t re et ro s_s i;n=g-
- - - - -
. - -
- - - - - Commercial _ _
Proposec~ _-5freef___-_
' ` Medians J. -
N~
_ _ ~~p: y _ 4T~ ~:-t~ i ~ _ ~ •
~ az:z
-
„
------M
r
Street
~
Commuter
- - Rail Parking
~ - Lot Entrance ~ ~~,.ti •.~P~o-~.~~„
-
6
t Agenda Item #
~ Meeting Date October 10, 2006
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Ciry Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 39 (ISW Hill View Street, 102nd Avenuel
.n
Prepared By: G. Berry g Dept Head r1p oval: City Mgr rlpproval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall City Council approve the formation of a sewer reimbursement district to construct a sanitary sewer project as part
of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval, by motion, of the attached resolution formuig the Reimbursement District
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
• The proposed project would provide sewer service to seven lots along SW Hill View Stteet and 102°d Avenue.
• Through the Ciry's Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program, the City would install public sewers to each lot within
the Reimbursement District and the owners would 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 would be responsible for disconnecting the
existing septic system according to Counry rules and any other plumbing modifications necessary to connect to the
public line.
• On September 7, 2006, staff inet with owners to review project procedure, construction schedule and estimated
costs. A letter from an owner requesting service is attached. Each owner has been notified of the hearing by mail.
The notice, mailing list and additional details are included in the City Engineer's Report attached as Exhibit A to the
proposed resolution.
• If Council approves this request to form the Reunbursement District, bids from contractors to construct the sewer
will be requested.
• Another resolution to finalize the Reimbursement District, with cost adjustments, will be submitted for Council
action after construction is completed and actual construction costs are determuied.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
The project is part of the Cityvvide Sewer Extension Program established by City Council to provide sewer service to
developed but unserved residenrial areas in the City. It meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Growth and Growth
Management goal of "Growth will be managed to protect the character and livability of established areas, protect the
natural environment and provide open space throughout the communiry." Sewer service enhances the environment
and protects the health of the residents by providing for the closure of septic systems 40 to 50 years old.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1- Proposed Resolution
Exhibit A, Ciry Engineer's Report
Exhibit B, Map
Attachment 2- Viciniry Map
Attachment 3- Notice to Owners
Attachment 4- Mailing List
Attachment 5- Letter from Owner
Attachment 6- Resolution No. 01-46
Attachment 7- Resolution No. 03-55
FISCAL NOTES
The estimated cost of the project is $234,200. This amount includes the estimated cost of construction plus an
amount for the administration and engineering as defined in TMC 13.09.040(1). The cost estimate for this project
has been adjusted to reflect the high bid prices received during the past sux months.
Funding is by unrestricted sanitary sewer funds.
i:\engt2006-2007 y dpWll view 8 102nd ss distVOrmatlon\10.70-08 reim dist 39 eis.AOc
HILL VIEW STREET & 102ND AVENUE
Reimbursement District No. 39
Estimated Cost to Property Owners
Summary
September 25, 2006
Estimated Construction Cost $179,429
15% contingency (construction) $26,914
Estimated construction subtotal $206,343
13.5% contingency (Admin & Eng) $27,856
total project costs $234,200
total area to be served (S.F.) 127,312
total cost per S.F. to property owner $1.83956756
I:\ENG\2006-2007 FY CIP\Hill View & 102ND SS Dist\Formation\Hill View Reimb by area.xls Page 3 of 4
HILL VIEW STREET & 102ND AVENUE
Reimbursement District No. 39
Estimated Cost to Property Owners
Sepfember 25, 2006
AMOUNT THAT
ESTIMATED
OWNER SITE ADDRESS AREA (S.F.) AREA (AC) REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT TO BE PAID AMOUNT TO BE PAID CAN BE
BY OWNER BY CITY DEFERED BY
FEE
OWNER
1 BRITTAIN FAMILY TRUST 10285 SW HILL VIEW ST 16543.307601 0.380 $30,433 $21,433 $9,000 $75,433
2 HART VIRGINIA A 10255 SW HILL VIEW ST 16543.359431 0.380 $30,433 $21,433 $9,000 $75,433
3 UPHOFF FAMILY TRUST 10225 SW HILL VIEW ST 16,543.45049 0.380 $30,433 $21,433 $9,000 $15,433
4 GILL EDWARD W 8 73885 SW 102ND AVE 19648.87340 0.451 $36,145 $27,145 $9,000 $21,145
5 TAYLOR PETER H 8 J 13965 SW 102ND AVE 18131.07695 0.416 $33,353 $24,353 $9,000 $18,353
6 MERRICK BRET 8 CAROLINE J 13990 SW 102ND AVE 2011829850 0.462 $37,009 $28,009 $9,000 $22,009
7 PECK, ALEN 13995 SW 102ND AVE 19784.00156 0.454 $36,394 $27,394 $9,000 $21,394
127312 2.92 $274,200 $171,200 $63,000 $129,200
The "ESTIMATED REIMBURSEMENT FEE" column shows the estimated reimbursement fee
for each lot. There are no requirements to connect to the sewer or pay any fees until the
owner decides to connect to the sewer. The final reimbursement fee will be determined once
construction is compiete and final costs are determined.
In accordance with Resolution No. 01-46, each property owner will be required to pay the first
, $6,000 of the final reimbursement fee for connections completed within the first three years of
City Council's approval of the final City Engineer's Report following construction. The
"AMOUNT TO BE PAID BY CITY" column shows that portion of the reimbursement fee that
the owners will not be required to pay if they connect to the sewer during this three year
period.
This resolution also requires owners to pay any fair share amount that exceed $15,000.
Consequently, if the final fair share for an owner exceeds $15,000, the owner would be
required to pay $6,000 plus that amount of the fair share that exceeds $15,000. Under
Resolution No. 03-55, payment of the amount in excess of $15,000 may be deferred until the
owner's lot is developed. This amount is shown in the "AMOUNT THAT CAN BE DEFERRED
BY OWNER" column.
In addition to the reimbursement fee, the owners will also be required to pay a connection fee,
currently $2,735, at the time of connection to the sewer. In addition, property owners are
responsible for disconnecting their existing septic system according to Washington County
rules and for any other modifications necessary to connect to the public sewer.
I:\ENG\20062007 FY CIP\Hill View 8 102ND SS Dist\Formation\Copy of Hill View Reimb by area.xls
HILL VIEW STREET & 102ND AVENUE
FY 2006-07 SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROGRAM
REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT N0. 39
A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 SECTION 2 T2S R1 W W.M.
~
HILL l/lEW ST
>
N ~
Q ~
Z =
O Q
~
MCDONALD ST
v Q Q
Z a . z
0 0 0°
VICINITY MAP
NTS
City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SWHall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223
September 25, 2006 ~
NOTICE
Informational Hearing
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
AT A MEETING ON
TUESDAY, October 10, 2006 AT 7:30 PM
IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER
13125 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD OR 97223
TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 39
(SW Hill View Street, 102°d Avenue)
The Tigard City Council will conduct an informational public hearing to hear testimony on
the proposed Reimbursement District formed to install sewers in SW Hill View Street,
102nd Avenue.
Both public oral and avrztten te.rtimony i.r invited.
The public hearing on this matter will be conducted as required by
Section 13.09.060 of the Tigard Municipal Code.
Further information and the scheduled time for this item during the Council meeting may be
obtained from the Engineering Department, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223, by
calling 503-718-2468 or at www.tigard-or.gov.
I:\eng\2008-2007 (y dp\hill view 8 102ntl ss tlisflfortnation\70.10-06 ielm dis[ 39 notice t.tloc Phone: 503.639.4171 . Fax: 503.684.7297 . www.tigard-or.gov . TTY Relay: 503.684.2772
2S102CC01700 2S102CC01800
BRITTAIN FAMILY TRUST HART VIRGINIA A
1487 PASSEO AURORA 10255 SW HILL VIEW ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92154 TIGARD OR 97223
2S102CC01900 2S102CC02600
UPHOFF FAMILY TRUST GILL EDWARD W&
10225 SW HILL VIEW ST 13885 SW 102ND AVE
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
2S102CC02700 2S102CC03700
TAYLOR PETER H B J MERRICK BRET & CAROLINE J
13965 SW 102ND 13990 SW 102ND AVE
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
2S102CC03600
PECK,ALEN
13995 SW 102ND AVE
TIGARD OR 97223
a•---~ ^~r ~f(''~
Fri!
February 4, 2006
City Hall ~;I°T'Y OF TIGARD
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard OR 97223
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
We would like to request to use the reimbursement district to add sewer to our home.
The septic system no longer meets the needs of our family. Understanding that this is a
long process we hope to be converted as soon as possible.
We look forward to hearing from you soon as to what the entire process is and the
timeline we can anticipate.
Sincerely,
Bret and Caroline Merrick
13990 SW 102. Avenue
Tigard OR 97223
503-684-9354
Cc: Greg Berry
TABLE 1
Reimbursement Dfstr(cts wlth Refunds Available
DISTRICT FEE PER LOT REIMBURSEMENT AVAILABLE INCENTIVE PERIOD ENDS
TIGARD ST.No.8 5,193 No reimbursement availabie
FAIRHAVEN ST/WYNo.9 4,506 No reimbursement available
NILLVIEW ST N0.11 8,000 July 11, 2003
106T" & JOHNSON No.12 5,598 No reimbursement available
100T" 8 INEZ No.13 8.000 July 11,2003
WALNUT 8 TIEDEMAN No.14 8,000 July 11,2003
BEVELANDBHERMOSA No.15 5,036 No reimbursement available
DELMONTE No.16 8,000 July 11,2003
O'MARA No.17 8,000 July 11,2003
WALNUT & 121sT No.18 - Amount to bc reimburaed will be Throo years from servica avail2bility
. ROSE VISTA No.20 - determined once final costs are determined.
' Currently being constructed
ty
AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: October 10, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
SIGN-UP SHEETS
Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on:
PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) - FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER
REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 (SW HILL VIEW/102nd STREETS)
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. 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 Limit on Testimony
ti
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8
Tfu's is a Crty of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State ofOregon's public meeting and records laws. AII written and oral testrmony become part
of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons wbo attend or participate in City of Tigard public meet*s will be included in the meeting
minutes, which is a public record.
Proponent (Speaking in Favor) Opponent (Speaking Against) Neutral
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE
Please Print Please Print Please Print
Name: Name: Name:
Also, please spell youx name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell yous name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if
will help the presiding officer pronounce: will help the presiding officer pronounce: it will help the presiding officer
pronounce:
Address Address
City City Address
State Zip State Zip City
Phone No. Phone No. State Zip
Phone No.
Name: Name: Name:
Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if
will help the presiding officer pronounce: will help the presiding officex pronounce: it will help the presiding officer
pronounce:
Address Address
City City Address
State Zip State Zip City
Phone No. Phone No. State Zip
Phone No.
=~F~ ~ ~ormation of Sanitary Sewer
x
~bursement District No. 39
Hill View Street, 102nd Avenue)
October 10, 2006
~
%E y~e~rmbursement District No. 39
~
ill View Street, 102nd Avenue 2ND 71ots in the fY 40p61OJV5~NITAPYESEWEPOE TENSION UPROGRAM
PEIMBIlRSEMENT OISLRICT N0. 39
proposed A PORTION 0F iNE SW I/4 SELtION R T3S RIW W.M.
district s
.
I ~ 'Fl~~'
...J I -`i :<<........
, ~ .
r ~
~
.~~~r.....+ i .I..,~I._. ~
ti- I -i I~ I' r
, i
vicir+itt u.v
Ni5
2
Reimbursement District 36 (SW 93rd Av) 1
Reim.bursement District No. 39
ill View Street, 102nd Avenue
❖ Sewer service will be provided to 71ots
❖ Completes service in the Hill View
Street area
3
j'
eetings Conducted
❖ Neighborhood meeting
• Conducted September 7, 2006 at Town Hall
• Staff reviewed project details with these owners
4
Reimbursement District 36 (SW 93rd Av) 2
~
Re~im.bursement District No. 39
ill View Street, 102nd Avenue
❖ Estimated Project Cost for 7 lots: $234,200
❖ Reimbursement Fee (Per Owner)
• $1.84 per square foot
❖ Incentive Program
• Reduced to $6,000 to the extent that it does not exceed
$15,000 if connection is made within three years after
service becomes available
• Amount over $15,000 can be deferred upon request until
development occurs
s
Rei!"~rn;bursement District No. 39
H11-' ill View Street, 102nd Avenue
❖ In addition, each owner pays the following:
4 $2,735 connection and inspection fee, which
funds treatment facility construction
•$50 (average) service charge per two months for
operation and maintenance of the entire system
• All costs to connect to the lateral installed
through this project
6
Reimbursement District 36 (SW 93rd Av) 3
Reiinabursement District No. 39
4
aS' ill View Street, 102nd Avenue
❖ Project will be constructed this spring
❖ Final costs will be based on actual
construction costs plus 13.5% engineering
and inspection fees
❖ Finalization of the district will be brought
back to Council after all work is completed
and actual costs are known
7
,
~
' Sta, f 'f Recommendation
~
❖ That Council approve the resolution forming
Reimbursement District No. 39
(SW Hill View Street, 102nd Avenue)
8
Reimbursement District 36 (SW 93rd Av) 4
Agenda Item #
19
Meeting Date 10/10/2006
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Ciry Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Tide Cach Creek Area Annexarion (ZCA2006-00002)
Prepared By: Emil~ Eng Dept Head Approval: ~ Ciry Mgr Approval: ~
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall City Counc.il approve annexarion of 35.78 acres of land (Zone Change Annexation - ZCA2006-00002) located
adjacent to and west of SW Sunrise Lane, including right-of-way on SW Sunrise Lane?
The proposed territory is contiguous to City limits and can be served by urban services.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the recommended ordinance annexing the proposed territory into the City of Tigard.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
City Council held a public hearing on Sept 26, 2006 concerning the Cach Creek Area Annexation and agreed to
continue the hearing on October 10, 2006. Council held the record open until October 3, 2006 until 3 p.m.
Supplemental information and public comments were submitted and axe attached to Addendum 1 of the hearing
packet. Addendum 1 is a memo idenrifying revisions to the staff report presented at the SeptembeY 26~' hearing. The
staff report has been revised to reflect a change to the proposal and a tax map error. On September 25, 2006, John
Noffz, an applicant, withdrew two parcels totaling 6.11 acres from the proposed annexation territory. Therefore, those
tax lots have been removed and the total acreage of the proposed territory has been changed from 40.93 to 35J8. In
addition, one tax lot number will be removed from the proposal because of the tax map error.
State law (ORS 222.120(4)(b), ORS 222.125, and ORS 222.170(1) and (2) authorizes a city to annex contiguous territory
when owners of land in the proposed annexarion territory submit a peririon to the legislarive body of the city. The
owners of the properries in the proposed territory have submitted peririons for annexarion to the City of Tigard. The
City invited adjacent owners to join the annexarion; three have expressed interest, but their properties have not been
included with this proposal due to time limitarions and norice requirements.
The proposed annexarion territory includes eight (8) parcels of utuncorporated territory totaling 35.78 acres (a new
survey concludes this is the correct acreage). The proposed territory is conriguous to the City of Tigard on the City's
westem boundary, including the SW Sunrise Lane right-of-way. Goal 5 and Bull Mountain Community Plan natural
resources exist on a majority or porrions of the properries in the proposed territory.
Most of the proposed territory is publicly owned and will be used for the purposes of a reservoir and parkland.
Two tax lots, which make up 3.03 acxes, are privately owned. No development applicarions have been submitted
for any of the parcels.
The applicable review criteria for this applicarion are ORS Chapter 222; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; City of Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10, and Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390.
Staff finds that the proposed annexation (ZCA2006-00002) meets all the approval criteria and recommends that the
Council approve ZCA2006-00002 by adoption of the attached ordinance.
Key Facts:
1. The proposed territory is contiguous to City limits;
2. Urban services are available to serve the proposed territory;
3. The pxoposed territory is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary and Metro's Urban Growth Boundary; and
4. The proposed territory is within the City's Urban Service Area and Area of Interest.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not approving ZCA2006-00002 if it does not meet the applicable review criteria.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Growth and Growth Management, Goal #2: Urban services will be provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban
growth boundary.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: An Ordinance Annexing 35.78 Acres, Approving Cach Creek Area Annexation (ZCA2006-00002)
and Withdrawing Property from the Tigard Water District, Washington Counry Enhanced Sheriff's Patsol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the
Washington County Vector Control District.
Exhibit A: Legal Description of Proposed Territory
Exhibit B: Washington County Taxation and Assessment Map for Proposed Territory
Exhibit Site and Vicinity Map
Exhibit`~: Petition for, and Consent to, Annexarion to the City of Tigard
ExhibitX. Staff Report to the City Council
-D Addendum 1: Memo Concerning Revisions to Staff Report
Supplemental Exhibit A: Supplemental Findings in Support of the Cach Creek Area
Annexation
Supplemental Exhibit B: Addirional Informarion and Public Comments Submitted to the
Record
Supplemental Exhibit C: Assessed Value of Properties to be Annexed
FISCAL NOTES
If approved, the proposed annexarion territory would not be transferred to the City's tax roll until July 1, 2007.
Annexations must be final by March 31 of the same calendar year for the tax year beginning July 1.
, ~ . .
~
~
~
i
CONTINUATION OF COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON
CACH CREEK ANNEXATION
~ ZCA 2006-00002
; WRITTEN RESPONSES RECEIVED
BY CLOSE OF RECORD
3:00 P.M. ON OCTOBER 3, 2006
i
~
~
Items Received at Septembex 26, 2006 Council Meeting ~
' Letter dated Septembex 26, 2006, fxom Richard Franzke
Letter dated Septembex 26, 2006, fxom Lisa Hamilton-Treick
s
:
~ Copy of lettet dated September 20, 2006 to Representative Jexry Knunmel ftom Ann Boss,
~ submitted by Lisa Hamilton-Treick
Copy of letter dated September 25, 2006 to City of Tigard Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher
from John O. Noffz, Jr., submitted by Lisa Hamilton-Treick
i
i
Items regarding IWB Consent to Annex
July 20, 2006, Intexgovernmental Water Boaxd Agenda
,
R..~~. .......~m.......
y July 20, 2006, Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes
Letter dated July 19, 2006, from King City Mayor Faes to the Intexgovemmental Watex
Board Chairperson, Bill Scheiderich, recommending the IWB execute annexation
~ B Revised lettex dated July 19, 2006, fxom King City Mayor Faes to the Intexgovernmental
Watex Board Chairperson, Bill Scheiderich, xecommending the IWB consent to annexation
i S
i
~ Confirmarion of Consent to Annexarion, dated September 26, 2006
Items xeceived after Septembex 26, 2006 Council Meeting and prior to October 3, 2006 Close of Record
Fax dated Septembex 30, 2006, to Tigard City Hall, from Karen and John Molloy
Fax dated October 3, 2006, to Tigard City Council, Attn: Emily Eng, from Lawrence R. Derr
i
i
~
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
~ . , . . . . . „ ,
Council Comments - Consideration of annexation of the Cach Creek Area (ZCA 2006-
0002) - October 10, 2006 (Agenda Item No. 9)
Mayor Dirksen asked if everyone reviewed the testimony received since September 26,
2006. All Council members indicated they reviewed. Mayor Dirksen asked for Council
comments.
Councilor Harding ~
I think this is a tough one. It's hard, because if the shoe were on the~dt~
~ ier foot, we would
have the same people who were wanting to incorporate saying, "W",ait"°:,you know, if
they were a city this is land that we own that we want to be part o`~f our City and we
wouldn't want someone else incorporating and taking part_vfrthat: J`think we have to be
careful in looking what the properties are. We haven'trrec ived a lot of,testimony from
other people. Part of ine says what is the harm if we wait ~t'il after the election...wait
until November. If they should incorporate then~.goffrom the~re and say soul~ ~e hold
onto rt or sell rt, what could we do. It s kind of tough. I ve been on the fence I can
understand both sides. And, I understand our position, too. This;is not somethi'rig tliat
just came about at the time that they f led the petitiori to in co~i-~porate. But, it makes sense
to have property that we own in the C~,ty in our own City-litnits. So, with that I think that
we also have a judge that is going to be~making a ruling that\we haven't had come down
yet. So, it almost seems regardless of what we,decide, it could~be~undone. Is it really
something we have to do tonight, even. Or~should we wait unt~the judge makes a
ruling. Tough call. I have-been very undecid'ed~to be qiiitie,honest./
~ ~
X
Council Woodruff
Well. as I have said bef~'that I~want to make sur' e that whenever I vote on somethin
g
that I think it is legal a.rid that I'think i is,right to do~foT~the people of Tigard. So, I take
this very serio Ly I`have prepared some,r mar.ks.here related to this and to the process
we ha b"~e'en in for th st coupl'e of\years egar=ding issues related to annexation.
...,~hat this is a leal~
I do~fhink tbased ori mY - understanding. But in anY case, as
g V~' ~ i
Councilor Ha~i'ding said, a judge'is goingAo rule on that question now that the issue has
been given to the court by those; people who are opposed to this particular annexation.
The second question;Xthough, is easier for me: Whether it is the right thing to do? I think
if you took a survey of'the`r ents of any city, I am convinced that they would agree
that property owned by a city should not end up in the city limits of another city. Land
and assets purchased by`he taxpayers in a city should remain under the local control of
that city. That seems like a no brainer to me. I don't see how you can argue on the other
side of that.
My support of this proposal is not at all in conflict with my support of the people living in
the unincorporated Bull Mountain area. I believe that they have every right to make
choices for their future. This Council has publicly stated that incorporation of that area is
a good thing. Since the majority chose not to join the City of Tigard, then incorporating
Excerpt - Council Discussion - Cach Creek Area Annexation
October 10, 2006 Page 1
into a new city is a very viable option. We have done nothing to oppose this
incorporation vote.
I am disappointed with some of the people that have been out front on this issue for a
couple of years and are now leading the charge on this vote by making Tigard and this
Council the villain.
They have said things so often and so convincingly that I think many people come to
believe the things that have been said are true. I say shame on therAnr saying in a
hundred different ways that Tigard wants to force people to becom par,t of Tigard.
Over the last several years, there has not been one parcel ~ xed~to Tigard against the
owner's will.
I say shame on them for saying that all we care abouVrs gob,bling up mofe p~roperty just
so we can collect more taxes. Ninety percent of the property related to this~proposal is
owned or controlled by the City of Tigard and/,it=.will generate"no property taa~ ncome
whatsoever.
nhmforr ed1 in~~at this Crt " ~
Shame o t e epeat y say g`thy an d Council do not care about the
community's quality of life or appearan d,e~s The implicationl's\that we don't care about
families and that we break the rules so we~~camcrowd as many homes as possible onto
every parcel. This is not only untrue, but it~.is ve y,offensive. ~
Shame on them for alw ys rying to make it se'em that we are4he ones that are not
cooperating and being reonable ~ I~f there is to b?e a better dialogue and partnership, then
there needs to be comp omi~e on their side as well\~\\
;
And finally/~,sham~us~for al~lowi g hese ttacks ~~on us to drain our time, our energy
and our resources. We,have allowed\some non-r,esidents of Tigard to have more power
and influence than they deserve to hav`eon this Council.
I support tfiis ordinance and,oPefiil'that no matter how the election turns out, the
relationship betwe en Tigard and the people of Bull Mountain will improve.
,
Councilor Sherwoo \
I am going to support th annexation of this property for the following reasons:
W
The City of Tigard owns' 17.71 acres of this land and, as a City Council we represent
45,500 residents who elected us. For us to leave this land in another city's boundaries
would be irresponsible to those citizens. It was the bulk of their money that purchased
this land and, as such, they have a vested interest in protecting their purchase. Because of
the agreements with Washington County, the City took steps years ago to buy this land
when it became available. For many years, the City Council of Tigard had a policy not to
purchase land for parks outside the city limits. This instance of Tigard owning land
outside this boundary for park land is a good example of why they didn't purchase land
for parks on Bull Mountain. If our efforts to annex this property become void, I would
Excerpt - Council Discussion - Cach Creek Area Annexation
October 10, 2006 Page 2
look for input from the citizens of Tigard to determine if they wish to leave their property
inside the City of Bull Mountain or sell it. However, with the circumstances what they
are now, I am going to vote for this annexation until the courts decide whether we have
the right.
As for the olive branch approach - I would suggest that Tigard take the land into the City
of Tigard and develop it as park. We have been moving in that direction for years and
have been waiting until it had been annexed before developing it. ~lso, having the Water
District property inside our boundaries also gives us the impetus t o develop even more
park land. If Bull Mountain does incorporate, it would take mor&,than\a,4ew years before
they would have the available funds to develop parks. We would not be locking up parks
~ to residents outside the City limits, just like we don't do now witlour parks. We
promised the people on the north side of Bull Mountain~"that~ e woul8build parks and
;
just as they were getting to the point of being able to, assemble the landAo reach the park
land, the new city boundaries of Bull Mountain were drawn.""After two Yars,of
, ~
negotiation, we purchased the Cach property just before Bu11~1VIountain incorpor•atio n w as
legally being petitioned for. ~
If the people in Bull Mountain are really-serious about an~ove branch approach, I would
offer that the City of Tigard bring the land~o~be annexed into the city and develop it for
park land during the next few years for ali~of th ~residents on Bul1.Mountain. If the
incorporation is a positive vote, then we can work?.together to develop a plan for
maintenance of the said park'land. U
w...~
Councilor Wilson ~
Actually, some of Tom s comments are similar to mine. I don't really want to talk to
tonight about the legal issues.Eyeryone-agrees that~w,hether or not the annexation will be
allowed j/stand_wi^ll-be decided by the couits base~d!on the interpretation of the law.
WhatrI r allY want to a is the 'mo'ralitY~ of our decision' since it was called into
question\by-Mr. Franzke at the public heaiuig two weeks ago. Mr. Franzke writes and I
quote: "Wha\tI~want to address is the `wrongness' of the City's action - it is wrong,
wrong, wron~Has this Council n~o sense of decency? Has it no respect for the will of the
citizens who will\~e affected by~ its actions? Must the lust for more tax revenue trump
basic fairness? I urge the Council to do the right thing: stop the annexation effort
immediately and abide\`,b~~the%/utcome of the incorporation vote on November 7I'."
Now, Mr. Franzke doesn't say why he thinks it is wrong to annex the property. Maybe
he thinks it is obvious. It is not obvious to me. I am going to show why, in fact, the
opposite is true - that the citizens of - for incorporation of Bull Mountain ought to step
aside and let the City of Tigard annex the property. Mr. Franzke, rather than advancing a
cogent argument, attacks this City Council saying that we have no sense of decency, no
respect for those impacted by our decisions. And then, he suggests a motive - that we
lust for tax revenue. Of course, that is ridiculous. There is no tax revenue, this is public
land. Was this a mistake by Mr. Franzke? I doubt it. Mr. Franzke is an attorney who
chooses his words carefully. No, I think this is a conscious effort to destroy the
Excerpt - Council Discussion - Cach Creek Area Annexation
October 10, 2006 Page 3
credibility of this Council and the City of Tigard. Mr. Franzke is an attorney after all.
He is trained to tear down witnesses on the witness stand. In court it is more about
winning the argument than getting out the truth. This has been going on for two years.
We have been subject to baseless assertions, half-truths, insults, and yes sometimes even
lies.
Now, I like to believe the best about people. When people tell me something, I assume
they are telling the truth. But, when the same issues are said over and over and over
again and you correct them and they still say the same things, I call t`w~hat it is - it's a
lie.
. ~
Since our motives have been called into question, I would 1-rke o tal a little bit about
what my motives are and it is certainly not a lust for taxes:ti ~
I bought my first Tigard house in 1990. Shortly tliereafter I was appointed' o.the
Planning Commission. Tigard at that time was~a. apidly growing City. At tha~time
from 1990 to now, one-third of all the houses that ar~currently standing in Tigarei`were
built -15 years; one-third. As we sat on the Plannin~Gommission we saw subclivision
after subdivision application come through: Benchview Estates, Morning Star, tHillshire
Estates, Quail Hollow, Hillshire Woods"~'Mountain HighlandsRavenridge, Arlington
Ridge, Eagle Pointe, Whistler's Walk, D~affodi~l Hill, Pacific C"rest; and on and on and on.
Most of these subdivisions were on the west,part o,f.,Tigard movng tward Bull Mountain
because that is where the larid°was. As the deu,el'opmentpushed toOhe City limits and
annexations began to occ r it~~ha been alleged~that these anne ?tions were forced
because of our IGA /with~Washington County. The Washinftn County IGA was signed
in 1997. In 1996, 18 ac eswere arinexed - all vol'iintary. In 1995, 25 acres were
annexed. In 1994_, 76 acres were,annexed. These aineations occurred one by one over
time, vol~~ ily asevelopment occurs`:_..~._.__..~
.
,
We l~wf that there was noiparks provider in unincorporated Washington County. We
knew that here was no legal way to stop~ /d even slow development. We had to get out
there in front o~ evelopmen~V~e had to take action to annex Bull Mountain if there was
to be any par~land up there at all~ We knew we didn't have much time. When we
started the proc ss, there were rio,park advocates from unincorporated Bull Mountain.
No one came to us and\said theyrhad a concern about development. Unincorporated Bull
Mountain was essenhally asle p unaware of the onslaught of development that was just
about to hit it. The rest i`sistory.
v
When we began the annexation effort, the tenor of the debate was against the City. It was
not particularly for anything. They blamed Tigard for all of the ills of Bull Mountain,
including the lack of park land. Mr. Franzke, when he testified to the Board of County
Commissioners on July 25t" said, "Here we are after many years of being governed by
Washington County followed by almost ten years of governance by the City of Tigard,
and we have no parks. So money has gone back and forth. It's gone through system
development charges and so on and so forth, but the money has not been spent on Bull
Excerpt - Council Discussion - Cach Creek Area Annexation
October 10, 2006 Page 4
Mountain. And here we are two years after the annexation battle in which parks are a
major issue there and still nothing has been done."
There has never been a parks provider in unincorporated Bull Mountain. Washington
County has two parks. One is at Hagg Lake; it's self-supporting. The other is at Metzger.
The little park in Metzger was formed in the 70's by the citizens there when they formed
an LID. They support that themselves with their tax income. Every five to seven years
as inflation eats away at their budget, they have another vote to support another increase
in the amount that they tax themselves. It's always been approved.There has never been
any County tax money used for parks ever in Washington Count,y~
Secondly, Tigard never governed Bull Mountain in any sense of the w\ord. Tigard
administered the zoning and building codes. It is muchli nth~e same way, that King City
hires Parson Brinkerhof to administer their zoning~c j de..o~one woul'dsay that Parsons
Brinkerhof governs King City. Tigard had no authority to change any zones on Bull
Mountain. It had no authority to change the code.without the\\Gounty Commissioners
-
voting on it. They collected fees from developers o pay for the?administration. Those
fees were used for administrative use only.
Mr. Franzke mentioned system developmerit,charges. Syst~development charges are
collected by the City of Tigard from developers for,parks when,building permits are
issued. No SDC's were ever collected in tlie un corporated area'~ 1VIr:~Franzke knows
this. I believe he intentionally-used vague language to rrii"slead. He said - listen carefully
~
to this -"So money has ,gone"back and forth. It's gone t~uglirsystem development
charges and so on and so`fo~rth, bu~ he money has~,~not been,sp nt on Bull Mountain."
The implication is that this money ~was collected from unincorporated Bull Mountain
residents and spent elsewh re. \ 'It -is-absolutely not t~u,e! Are you outraged Mr. Franzke?
Let me tell.you.who should be outr.aged~-,i shoul,d be the citizens inside the city limits
from wh in'these s-w~e e collcted. Not, from/those in the unincorporated areas. It
shou come from my nergh a;s, it should ome from people like me.
I bought\y second Tigard h~ouse three;y ae s ago. Systems development charges were
t
included in the.p`urchase price a~nd rolled over and I paid them through my mortgage.
When I bought my~house, this is how much I paid. (At this point Councilor Wilson
placed a sum of cashowthe desk`~before him.) That's $1700. That's real money. That's
what I paid for parks. Allo~the citizens in the unincorporated area together - all together
- paid less than this amount - less than one penny. Where's the outrage? Who deserves
the parks - these people o these people?
Who deserves a park? The median household income in Metzger is $30-40,000. The
median household income in Bull Mountain is $75,000 to $100,000. When people of
modest means adopt a can-do attitude, band together and achieve a community goal like
the people of Metzger did, they deserve to be commended. When they take care of
themselves without asking for a handout, that's admirable. When wealthy people
demand services they did not pay for and indeed refuse to pay for. When they come in
Excerpt - Council Discussion - Cach Creek Area Annexation
October 10, 2006 Page 5
here and demand services from us that deserves to be condemned. Mr. Franzke, save
your lectures about fairness and get out of the way we have a park to build.
Mayor Dirksen
I appreciate all of things that my fellow Councilors have said. Like Councilor Harding, I
was kind of on the fence on this, trying to decide what made the most sense here
whether we should annex this or not in light of what also is happening on Bull Mountain
- with the incorporation effort and several other things. But also, like Councilor
Woodruff, I never had any doubt as to what would be the right thing to~do. Sometimes
what makes sense and what's the right thing to do isn't the same,tliing: -But, if I have to
make a decision between doing something that makes sense and doing the right thing, I'll
always pick - at least I try - to always pick the right thing.A~rtoI~N~y.~sons when they
were growing up, when you have to make a decision arid,yau know hat the right thing
\ ~ , •
to do is, but sometimes it doesn't make sense becaus/e,mayb,e,nobody eise\~is supporting it
- if you decide to do the right thing, later even after everythi\g goes to 1e11 you can
always say, you know what I did the right thing~.\~
The really sad part about this is - is today should be a~day,of cele rb ation. Today~is the
day when we get a chance to make a`stepjo fulfill a promise that we made to the people
that live on Bull Mountain, both inside\ the city and outside the~city - that we would do
~
our best to try to figure out a way to provi`de a-p k4on Bull Mou\ntain. We agreed with
everyone that the Bull Mountain area was a~park-`deficient area. \And; our Parks Master
Plan recognized that also arid-for years has showii the eed-and identity for a park on Bull
Mountain. This Council has worked for years 'i'n an effort ~to fiand and purchase land on
the Mountain to provide4the people~'there with a park. The people that were opposed to
the City for the annexat on effort two years ago e`re amongst the loudest voices saying
that the City should be looking`forland`on Bull Mountain to build a park. We, since that
.
time - agreeing_wi i them - we'emad'e,every effort to do so. Now, when we get to the
point wher we are actually,going,to do it, we're~being opposed, vilified, and punished by
tho se,very~same people f6r0doing wfiat they asked us to do. That's unfortunate. They
have their\agenda, they've moved ahead; We have ours as well. They don t match.
That's not fo be, surprising.
This Council - I f 1\- this Couricil and even the previous Council - that worked toward
a conclusion on Bul`l Mountain/ whether it be an annexation or whatever is appropriate -
has always done so in an effort to do for the community what the community needed.
My personal opinion is -~'isthat the Friends of Bull Mountain and, to some extent, that it
is the same people that are the people for incorporation - what it has always been about
for them is not necessarily what the community needed or what anybody needed, but
what they wanted - what they wanted - those individuals. And, that's unfortunate. But
because they have that agenda and because they have that desire, doesn't mean that we
need to bend to it. We have no control over what they do and they will ultimately
determine their destiny on Bull Mountain. And, we don't know what that will be. But
we do know what we can do and what we have control over. And so we can move
forward with our plan in that direction. And I think that's what this Council needs to do
rather than trying to second guess what may or may not happen - what other people may
Excerpt - Council Discussion - Cach Creek Area Annexation
October 10, 2006 Page 6
or may not choose to do. But rather, move ahead with what we know and what we are
secure in and what we have control over. And one of those things we can do, is move
forward toward fulfilling that promise that we promised years ago to provide a park on
Bull Mountain. And, for that reason, I would support this annexation as well.
Mayor Dirksen: If there is no other comment or question, we will be considering
Ordinance No. 06-15.
Councilor Woodruf£ I move for adoption of Ordinance No. 06 f15.
Councilor Sherwood: I second the motion.
Mayor Dirksen: It has been moved and seconded. fVJill the>'Gity \Recorder please read the
number and the title of the ordinance.
. . ~ .
Crty Recorder Wheatley: Ordmance No. 06-15. Anordinance anne~ng 35.78 aapproving Cach Creek area annexarion-(ZCA2006-00002) a~ ithdtawing property from
the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District,
Washington County Uxban Roads Mainten n e~District; Wasliington County Street Lighting
District #1, and the Washington County Vecto -ont,,xol District
Mayor Dirksen: Is there any dissussion? Bef~re;we move.forward with the vote, I would
ask the City Attorney if; iis process, we have~overstepped-or o erlooked any steps that
we need to make befor make thisI vote? t~
Ciry Attorney Ramis: The C ci.~.as taken the ro ~er steps undex the statute and now it is
iin '
the time to vote
Mayox'Dirksen: I don't eed to close\tihe public hearing at this point - it already....
Ciry Atto\ y Ramis: That process has erided.
~ Recorder Mayor Dixksen: C9k.\Will the Cit,y please conduct a xoll call vote of Council.
City Recorder Wheade'y conduet a roll call vote with results as follows:
ouncilor ils ri:/ Ye
C W o s
Councilor Woodruff Yes
Mayor Dirksen: Yes
Councilor Harding: I'm going to say yes, but I also understand that it could be
undone by a judge. But, I need to take a stand on saying this
is property that we own, that it is part of our city. If the
judge should rule another way, we'll address that then.
Councilor Sherwood: Yes
Mayor Dirksen: Ordinance No. 06-15 is adopted.
Excerpt - Council Discussion - Cach Creek Area Annexation
October 10, 2006 Page 7
hedmIcathy\wnW081counGl comments - annexalion - 70.1408.doc
C. ~
Excerpt - Council Discussion - Cach Creek Area Annexation
October 10, 2006 Page 8
•
~
I am going to support the annexation of this property for the following reasons:
The city of Tigard owns I 7- acres of this land and as a city
council, we represent the 45,500 residents who elected us. For us to leave this
land in another city's boundaries would be irresponsible to those citizens. It was
the bulk of their money that purchased this land and as such, they have a vested
interest in protecting their purchase. Because of the agreements with
Washington County, the city took steps years ago to buy this land when it became
available. For many years the city council of Tigard had a policy to not pwchase
land for parks outside of city limits. This instance of Tigazd owning land outside
its boundaries for parkland is a good example of why they didn't purchase land
for pazks on Bull Mountain. If our efforts to annex this property become void, I
would look for input from the citizens of Tigard to determine if they wish to leave
that property inside of the city of Bull Mountain or sell it. However, with
circumstances what they are now, I am going to vote for this annexation until the
courts decide whether we have that right.
As for the olive branch approach: I would suggest that Tigard take the land in to
the city of Tigard and develop it as a park. We have been moving in that direction
for years and have been waiting until we had it annexed before developing. Also,
having the water district property inside our boundaries also gives us the impetus
to develop even more parkland. If Bull Mountain does incorporate, it would take
more than a few years before they would have available funds to develop parks.
We would not be locking up parks to residents outside the city limits.... just like
we do now with all our parks. We promised the people on the northside of Bull
Mountain that we would build parks and just as we were getting to the point of
being able to assemble land to reach the parkland, the new city boundaries of Bull
Mountain were drawn. After two years of negotiation, we purchased the Cach
property just before the Bull Mountain incorporation was legally being petitioned
for.
If the people on Bull Mountain are really serious about an olive branch approach,
• I would offer that the city of Tigard bring the land being annexed in to the city
and develop it for parkland during the next few yeazs for all the residents on Bull
Mountain. If the incorporation is a positive vote, then we can work together to
develop a plan for maintenance of the said parkland.
~DC! J~1 Ci~/o f Uv odC~~u~s ~
nj ~
- I - - - - -
--w~
y_o
~ ~A,4~~f' ` ~ - ~ , t~
- - - - _ -
- - - -
- - - - - - -
cc
~
- - _
- ~NO _ - -
r-o $~8UN -°A - -
~y
Cni'r
"G
- - -
>
_e A
- ~ ~ ~ b, oSe4 Gvh~-
'
~~--~~.~~-~~~~~~il
IVQ Ve fi d=QA~~~
----.t---
-
(-~~,~,,Q
`~,.r~~ ~ ~tT~ ~~~9 ~ , F ~
l/
- - -
- - ~----o? -
,-~~'1 v l ~ 1~~►
- - - - ~ _G~ ~ ~ ~a
a ~ ~ -e
- - - - -
~@--~- -
- - - ~ ~ - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
~ - - o ~ - - - -
-
- - - - - -
- tA
0 i~ (P- av~ h r~ ~tcvvpt\~V4_ _
~
CAAcz.~e~2
~
- - CC,. - -
,
c%~Z" P/~ ~ - E i ~ 1.~~' ~ a ~i V ~t k~ ~ ~111~
co,
~Ce~
- L----- - - - - - - - -
~
-~A2 u_ ~ t~~
' ~r ~ r ~ C'-~✓~`
t~A
- - Pl ~I ~ ~ ~ ~,d~ - - -
~
~ ,
- - - ~ n
- - - -
- ~ ~eA~~~~ ~ 'A~-'~
P P -
-
-
lr
~I U' ~ ~I ~ - - ----I-- ~ - -
y
, - - - ~ - -
o
- z'--- -
~ 114-C owvvv--~
- - - - - - - - -
----P ~ LCk I A 6~ - ~
- - - - - - , _ `b,ST o",v"ll
_ VA
_ -
~ ~
- - - - G~~ l~~~ a \r-
- - - o Y,I
~e ~ ~ I co w .
_ - -
-7-~~..
~
tvol ~a~
~
~
- - - - ---~'U
11 A=02--- ar
- - ---T -
-
- ~
~ 11) d aa IAV
• \ ~1~
- ~ - - - ~7. - = - - -
-
- - -----w-.--- ~ ~
~
VO/V.
~--A c~
~
- ~2-- ~ - -
- ~ -
- -
~ -
- - ~ K- f
- ~ ~~1 ~ - -
- 1~--
c`
~ ~ ~i ~ ►r~ Qr~.S Y ~ N~` ~a,
D t~ ~'i,~'~'~ w~ C' ~ E ~ ~ 9
lz,~A 0~~
- -f - ~ - -
~ -a--
~
- - c~-- ~~~5 J1 Awv~'
~
'A~IA~
~ _ /z/va,
- - ~
. ~
Page 1
Councilor Wilson's Annexation Comments
Tonight we are considering the annexation of 36 acres of mostly publicly-
owned land (3 acres in not public) which the City intends to use for a water
reservoir and a park. Once again we find ourselves again in a very public
legal battle with Bull Mountain incorporation advocates. We agree that the
party that initiated its process first has the right to the property. Our
disagreement is over what constitutes the initiation of the process. It will be
decided by the courts.
But I want to address the reasons for our actions since the morality of our
decision is being challenged. At the public hearing two weeks ago, Mr. Dick
Franzke submitted the following testimony.
He writes: "What I want to address is the "wrongness" of the City's action - it
is wrong, wrong, wrong. Has this council no sense of decency? Has it no
respect for the will of the citizens who will be affected by it's actions? Must
the lust for more tax revenue trump basic fairness? I urge the council to do
the RIGHT thing: stop the annexation effort immediately and abide the
outcome of the incorporation vote on November 7th."
. ~
Page 2
We would not be here tonight if there was not another legitimate point of
view. Mr. Franzke did not say why he thinks it is wrong to annex this
property. Perhaps he thinks it should be obvious to anyone. It is not obvious
to me and in fact I would like to show why in fact the opposite is true. The
petitioners should do the right thing and withdraw these parcels from the
proposed City.
In his remarks, Mr. Franzke, rather than advancing a cogent argument,
attacks this City Council. He suggests that we have no sense of decency, and
no respect for the will of those impacted by our decisions. And then, having
no presented no arguments, he condemns our motives: We are allegedly
interested in the tax revenue that this property will generate. This is of
course ridiculous as these properties, being publicly owned, generate no tax
revenues. Mr. Franzke is a successful attorney and a highly intelligent
person. He knows that there are no tax revenues at stake. So why would he
say that? Was it a mistake? I don't think so. I believe that it is part of a
conscious tactic where truth is less important than winning the argument.
Mr. Franzke is an attorney and is doing what he is trained to do. We have
been barraged with baseless assertions, half-truths, insults, and yes,
sometimes lies. I don't know what else to call them. For two years I have
held my tongue on the matter of the honesty of our opponents. But when the
Page 3
same false statements are repeated again and again after having been
corrected. I call that what it is. It's a lie.
Since our motives have been called into question, let me talk about my
motivation for annexing the subject property tonight. It is most certainly not
the "lust for tax revenue".
I moved to my first Tigard house in 1990 and was appointed to the Planning
Commission shortly thereafter. Tigard was a rapidly growing city at that
time. In fact, one third of all homes currently in Tigard have been built since
1990. Those of us on the Planning Commission became acutely aware of this
rapid growth as each subdivision application was processed. There was
Benchview Estates, MorningStar, Hillshire Estates, Quail Hollow,
Hillshire Woods, Mountain Highlands, Ravensridge, Arlington Ridge,
Whistler's Walk, Eagle Pointe, Pacific Crest, Daffodil Hill and many others.
It was a westward march toward our city limits. And as it bumped against
the city limits, annexations occurred as developers voluntarily annexed to the
City. It has been alleged that these annexations were forced because of the
City's IGA with Washington County. This is not true. That agreement took
effect in May of 1997. There were many annexations that occurred before
that time. In 1996, the City approved requests for annexation totaling 18
acres; in 1995, 25 acres were annexed; in 1994, 76 acres were annexed.
Page 4
We knew that there was no parks provider in the unincorporated area. And
we knew that there was no legal mechanism to stop or even slow
development. It was assumed by many of those both inside and outside the
City that the city limits would continue to expand westward with
development until it encompassed the entire Bull Mountain area. And we
felt a sense of responsibility for this area since it represented our future. But
as those of us who were involved in processing all of these development
applications realized that in order for us to ever get any parkland in the Bull
Mountain area which was being very rapidly developed we had to get out in
front of development. And we knew that there was not much time.
Before we attempted to annex Bull Mountain, there was no voice advocating
for park acquisition on Bull Mountain. There was no one who came to us and
said we really need to do something about growth. Bull Mountain was asleep
in its rural tranquility, completely unaware of the looming firestorm of
development that would overtake it from the east. But even during the
annexation battle the tenor of the debate was largely against the City's
annexation effort but it was not for anything. Opponents very successfully
tarred and feathered the City of Tigard. They blamed Tigard for all of the
perceived ills on Bull Mountain including the lack of parkland.
Page 5
And they continue to make such assertions.
In Dick Franzke's Testimony before the Board of County Commissioners on
July 25, he said, "Here we are after many years of being governed by
Washington County followed by almost 10 years of governance by the City of
Tigard, and we have no parks.... So money has gone back and forth. Its gone
through system development charges and so on and so forth but the money
has not been spent on Bull Mountain. And here we are two years after the
annexation battle in which parks are a major issue there and still nothing
has been done."
There are a number of inaccuracies with this statement both in what is being
implied and with the facts as stated.
First of all there is not now nor has there ever been a parks provider for
unincorporated areas of Washington County. Washington County does not
provide parks for its citizens with two exceptions. The County operates
Scoggins Valley Park at Haag Lake. Haag Lake is self supporting and in
most years returns a surplus to the County's general fund. The other park is
7 acre Metzger Park. In the 1970's the citizens of Metzger banded together
and formed an LID to tax themselves and form their own park. It is operated
by the County but is supported by revenues generated by the 2500 tax lots. .
Page 6
Every 5 to 7 years inflation takes a bite out of the revenues and they go back
to the LID members for more support. They have always supported the
increases. There have never been any County property tax revenues spent on
parks in Washington County.
Secondly Tigard was never responsible for governance of unincorporated Bull
Mountain. Tigard had an agreement with Washington County to administer
the zoning and building codes. This is like the agreement that King City has
with Parsons Brinkerhof, an engineering firm to administer its zoning code.
No one would say that Parsons Brinkerhof governs King City. Tigard had no
authority to change any zones, or modify any development codes that applied
to the unincorporated areas. Tigard collected fees from developers and
builders to pay for this administration but it was used only for that purpose.
None of this money was ever used for parks or anything else.
Mr. Franzke mentioned System Development Charges or SDC's. Parks
SDC's are fees for the purpose of new park construction. The City of Tigard
charges these fees to builders of new homes when building permits are
issued. These costs are then passed on to the home buyers when they are
sold. No SDC's for parks have ever been charged for homes in the
unincorporated area. Mr. Franzke knows this and he was purposely vague in
is choice of words so that no one could accuse him of falsehood. He said: "So
Page 7
money has gone back and forth. It's gone through system development
charges and so on and so forth but the money has not been spent on Bull
Mountain." What Mr. Franzke appears to be implying is that money has
been collected from residents of unincorporated Bull Mountain and been
spent at Cook Park, and elsewhere in Tigard. And that is not true. There
was no money collected. None. If there is any outrage it should come from
inside of Tigard's current city limits where these funds have been collected.
The outrage should come from my neighbors. The outrage should come from
subdivisions like Benchview Terrace, Hillshire, Castle Hill, Daffodil Hill, and
Pacific Crest. The outrage should come from me! I bought my second Tigard
house on Bull Mountain three years ago. System Development Charges were
included in my purchase price. This is what I paid. $1700. This is real
money! All of the residents of unincorporated Bull Mountain combined paid
less than this! Not one penny! I am at a loss to understand why the
leadership of the incorporation effort continues to assert that Tigard owes
them a park when they have not contributed anything to that end. Metzger
with its much more modest median household income of $30-40,000 created
its own park years ago and continues to support it. Bull Mountain on the
other hand with median household income in the $75,000 to $100,000 range
claims some sort of entitlement to a park despite having contributed nothing.
Page 8
As if the perverse welfare for the rich concept wasn't ludicrous enough, now
the leadership of the incorporation effort want to block our efforts to build a
park on Bull Mountain. I don't know of any city that has built a park in
another city. If this land does not come into the city of Tgard, it seems
highly unlikely that Tigard would build it. We deserve our City park. Do the
right thing. Step aside and allow the annexation to go forward and we will
build a park for all to enjoy.
.
CI'TY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 2006- i,5
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 35.78 ACRES, APPROVING CACH CREEK ARF A
ANNEXATION (ZCA2006-00002), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD
WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL
DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(b), ORS 222.125, and ORS
222.170(1) and (2) to annex contiguous territory upon receiving written consent from owners of land
in the territory proposed to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties
which currendy 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 September 26, 2006, to consider the
annexarion of eight (8) parcels (WCTM 2S105DB, Tax Lots 6100, 6200 & 400; WCTM 2S105DC, Tax
Lots 201, 300 & 400; and WCTM 2S105DD, Tax Lots 200 & 300) of land located adjacent to and west
of SW Sunrise Lane, and adjacent to and north of SW Bull Mountain Road, including right-of-way on
SW Sunrise Lane and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington
Counry Enhanced Sheriff s Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Water District for certain debt
obligations, however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore,
no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a
public hearing on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property
from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff s Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington Counry Vector Control District on September 26, 2006; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties
from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced 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
ORDINt1NCE NO. 2006-ZCr12006-00002 Cach Creek Axea Annexauon
Page 1 of 3
,
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically
changed to the City zoning most closely confornling to the Counry zoning; and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09
and has been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the
Comprehensive Plan and the annexation substantially addtesses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating
annexations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and
determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in the best
interest of the City of Tigard.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in the attached Exhibit
"A" and shown in Exhibit "B" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water
. District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff s Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 2: The Tigaxd City Council adopts the "Staff Report to the City Council," as amended by
the memorandum from Emily Eng, dated October 5, 2006, as find.ings in support of
this decision; a copy of the staff report including the amending memorandum is
attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3: The Tigard City Council adopts "Supplemental Findings in Support of Cach Creek Area
Annexation" as findings in support of this clecision. A copy of the Supplemental
Findings in Support of the Annexation is attached as Exhibit A to Addendum 1 to the
Staff Report and incorporated by th.is reference.
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by
the Mayor and posting by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation,
including certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing,
filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from
the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff s Patrol District, Washington County Urban
Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the
Washington County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this
annexation.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this properry from the
Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2007.
ORDINt1NCE NO. 2006-ZCA2006-00002 Cach Creek Aiea Annexation
Page 2 of 3 -
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the
Secretary of State.
' PASSED: By - Uha-aIM ULlS vote of all Council members present after being read by number
and title only, this D day of 42-e-t2 )2006.
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorde
APPROVED: By Tigard Ciry Council this y of 0 ,
l da~~
~ 2006.
f.
Craig Dir sen, Mayor
Approved as to form:
ity Attorney Date
~
ORDINr1NCE NO. 2006-/,t5- ZCA2006-00002 Cach Creek tlrea Annexarion
Page 3 of 3 •
. . EXHIBIT A
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
A ttact of land situated in the Section 5, Townslup 2 South Range 1 West Willamette Mexidian described as
follows:
Beginning at the Northeast Comer of Stanhurst; thence N 00° 47' 29" E a distance of 1227.67 feet; thence .
N 00° 47' 29" E a distance of 225.00 feet; thence S 88° 52' 17" E a distance of 341.09 feet; thence S 00° 47'
29" W a distance of 225.00 feet; thence N 88° 52' 17" W a distance of 117.09 feer thence S 00° 11' 04" E a
distance of 348.04 feet; thence S 89° 12' 37" E a distance of 420.08 feet; thence S 01° 12' 28" W a distance
of 615.64 feet; thence N 88° 41' 47" E a distance of 356.41 feet to the westetlp right-of-way of SW Sunrise
Lane; thence along the said westetly sight of-way the following 7 coutses; thence N 14° 18' 07" W a
distance of 11.36 feet; thence N 16° 59' 53" E a distance of 92.68 feet; tlience N 43° 18' 47" E a distance of
111.75 feet; thence N 04° 36' 28" E a distance of 155.66 feet; thence N 01° 25' S8" E a distance of.
131.41feet; thence N 18° 08' 48" W, along said westerly right-of-wap, a distance bf 101.59 feet; thence N 05°
04' 06" E, along said westerly, xight-of-way, a distance of 89.57 feet; thence S 84° 55' 54" E leaving said
westetly, right-of-way, a distance of 40.00 feet to the easterly right-of-way of SW Sunrise Laae; thence N 84°
18' 39" E a distance of 123.69 feet; thence S 87° 13' 42" E a distance of 312.82 feet; thence S 01° Ol' 50" W
a distance of 304.42 feet; thence N 89° 28' 08" W a distance of 409.21 feet to the easterly right of-uray of SW
Sunrise Lane; thence, along said easterly right-of-way the followiug 8 coutses, S 01° 25' 58" W a distance of
11.28 feet; theuce S 04° 36' 28" W a distance of 171.82 feet; thence S 43° 18' 47" W a distance of 116.45
feet; thence S 16° 59' 53". W a distance of 72.12 feet; thence S 14° 18' 07" E a distance of 184.66 feet; thence
S 04° 12' 11" W a distance of 330.61 feet; thence S 00° 35' 17" W a distance of 322.91 feet; thence S 00° 15'
17" W a distance of 68.92 feet fo the northerly right-of-way of SW Suntise Lane; theuce S 89° 49' 00" E,
along said northetly tight-of-way, a distance of 237.80 feet; thence S 00° 43' 00" W, along said northerly
right-of-way, a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 89° 49' 00" E, along said northerly right-of-wap, a distance of
920.60 feet; thence S O0° 56' OS" W a distance of 20.00 feet; thence N 89° 49' 00" W a distance of 4.92 feet
to the northwest comer of lot 19 Bull Mountain Estates; thence S 00° 11' 00" W, along the west line of said
lot 19, a distance of.15.00 feet to the eztension of the southetly right-of-way of SW Sunrise Lane; thence N
89° 49' 00" W, along said southerly right-of-wap, a distance of 251.37 feet to the northwest comer of lot 18
Bull Mountain Estates; thence N 00° 25' 58" E, a distance of 15.00 feet to the northwest comex of Bull
Mountain Estates; thence N 89° 49' 00" W, along southetly right-of-way of SW Sunrise Lane, a distance of
941.78 feet to the westexly right of wap of SW Sunrise Lane; thence N 00° 15' 17" E, along said westerly
right-of-way, a distance of 109.57 feet; thence N 00° 35' 17" E, along said westerly right-of-way, a distaace
of 175.45 feet; thence N 89° 47' 37" W a distance of 310.04 feet; thence S 00° 31' 09" W a distance of
130.19 feet; thence N 89° 49' 00" W a distance of 284.88 feet; thence S 00° 47' 38" W a distance of 155.00
feet; thence N 89° 49' 00" W a distance of 135.00.feet; thence N 00° 47' 38" E a distance of 155.00 feet;
thence N 89° 49' 00" W a distance of 300.00 feet to the eastexly line of Stanhurst; thence N 00° 47' 29" E, along said easterlp line, a distance of 510.55 feet to the'poittt of bed hhlfig.
Containing 35.78 acxes.
'
AIVNEXATION CERTIFIED REGISTERED
PROFES510NAL
gy kAND sURvEvoR
O C 0 2 2006 3~ P,
WASHINGTON COUNTY A& T o r. E c o Im
CARTOGRAPHY '"'Y 18, 1980
JOHN R. NAOLEY
189~
EXCEPTING
A tract of land situated in the Section 5, Township 2 South Range 1 West Willamette Meridian desctibed as
follows:
Commencing at the Northeast Comer of Stanhuzst; thence N 00° 47' 29" E a distance of 262.71 feet; thence
S 89° 10' 59" E a distance of 624.11 feet; thence S 01° 05' 50" W 10.03 feet; thence N 88° 41' 59" E a
distance of 217.00 feet to The True Point of Beginning; thence S 05° 00' 48" E a distance of 227.46 feet;
thence S 05° 07' 52" W a distance of 115.66 feet; thence S 89° 49' 00" E a distance of 181.95 feet; to the
westerlp right of wap of SW Sunrise Lane; thence N 04° 12' 11" E, along the westerly right-of-way of SW
Sunrise Laae, a distance of 183.76 feet; thence N 14° 18' 07" W, along the westerly right-of-way of SW
Sunrise Lane, a distance of 168.15 feet; thence S 88° 41' 59" W a distance of 163.44 feet to the true point of
begiuning Containing 1.42 acres
ANNEXATION CERTIFIED
BY Aq
OCT 0 2 2006
WASHINGTON C4UNTY A & T
CARTOGRAPHY
PROFE SSlOP'jthL
#.AN9 StlR4/IYOR
4J ~ / 1 • ( ~~c~~~
Zw~a.~ n~ 4~a4
I:bnpyoMrtiWmexallonsNnnex 231 aeUWn 5 9.2846.tloe ,
:a._. x ~
. , . ' : m;°°°°
:mmco;
g ai.c ~
noe •
~
S,
Y
. . .
'
A
- 293 • ~C
.
.
. . ,
. : . . .
.
. .
4
a . . . .
.
. . ,
.
.
~i . ' , x . • . . . . . . . . . . .
raad.;
~ ' '.xidco ,IDpp , . .
G
i .ay . . . .
~A
, : .
8•
D .
, . . .
ze
29t.~
W
;r , r ' " " i. ~i:, '•aFlsp<' 'th~W," '
a .
~~,qu'w:' i!n
• ace: ~y~
~
' 3<E,
W
, I4..
W
1 AY
z
W
Z •.1~lM~. +
~ : f. .1W41'.
:flflll i:
~
064
.J
c
.'m
iioeoo'
+m^ ~ ,
~
KMC
V ~r'..'~
~ ~aedd. :'ras ~
S aoao,.
e: ~~~biii• ~
l fmii'• '
^
~$o
v~
4 '~3
d .
A•.
tD -
i
W
~ -
,
- .
J. _
J:
• ~ .
. . ~ ~
. , .
- . ~ . ~1M
. .,mm - .
~•2WK
1•
:,•`,~xwNMwwi~ln
~xuti~niteix •
~4er
~
~Y
~•f,•~a::'t~'.~ wwUF . ...,...lflll0 . .
WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON
~....s. SW 1 f4 SEt /4 SECTION 05 T2S R1 W W.M.
SCALE 1"e 700'
3,1"' .3 ! 'l~? %31•,;'
7o,
.oe~c 't, Bt 5 . , <•y;%, ~y. ~;g~:
T2,,
300 x _ 23 78 ,
~r:°'°~? B. . ~ ~ ' , ' X' :ti 8. ~Z, V ..~f.
' B q A ~
~ +l .;,,xm
.
~ .`Y' . . . . ,."X .5'. f~~ ✓~'l
vj:, i:, " ' ' ` l' w.~ ~j. "
, ~ . i' , e b~~~:.,~'::s : : ~t~
;aw.•.
'
+m . . . - .io.~'„• . .."m~~ao'~t• . . , . . . .
, 37 . c " • ~ ~II€ B ~ ~ ~ ~ ' FORADOlTIONALMAPSVISflOUNWEBSfIEAT
a1 ':~5.,~ .;j- ~17• ; .4t '.7~. . . el~ . .
.
.
3 A e
_ '•8 I I~snxel '.~e.tii::"~.~ % Inrw.CO.wsthfnp(on.or.us
. . , . . ,
~
.
. . .
~:do
,
.
; . . . ~
aa..a A ~•-•'°ea-- `.B`e:~•> >'9A';~°~ , ;:ae;,; .
~ ,,,,.a,,, :g • ~
q " B, _
,'.~.V~'~~'~ `;•,~~"~s~' :~.'6~;': .
, 4q ,3M ~ '
(C .Y,e~c, . ' ' , . .i; . t:
~ . i~K.,,;: , , , ;,oA:":,
R 2538)4r
,'n;9' • . ICbfA~q;.,~` _
~~J ~cs+e~m
~T\. noe,``,~ q 6~
e 3
; ..'t9 , ab. ~ . 8 .oaec ~
i•:~ {
~....mn ib a6oa lbATaXdobFa: 281050C
Cance
; : . °aa° - s..r - _
ANNEXATION CERTIFIEU
~d. ~b61C '
A•
BY
•'8 soo , f
~~is,oa~ N A~
•:~.oY~t~
t
ix~e
; e,, .~v> T;• OCi 0 E 2006
q~', - ~;.';y. ~ " _ WASHINGTONCOUN1YAdT
`,..,p~ . ~ CARTOGPAPHY
ia'~'.,•~,. ~ ."1RfONNEN~ . '
~ '
' ;X"•f;, ~'f.~ ;_CARTOGRf1P.HY'~v~'°~?
W
GQ, , • z Y ~ x ~ 4 B c w
•:W ;
v a--• •`•_~'~:.;<:.;=':,•-`:~>~•<:>::''~,,~
~ PLOT DATE: SePtem6er 05, 2006
Q 'c`~ FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES
.r ~,,'~.,'•.~;a..,•.~ ~ ` ~ • . ~
. . 4,;';.~';::~`:.' ':~,oc.yc.•. ONLY-DONOTRELYON
f.~. FOR OTNER USE
~ei:,; :.~r.-•_•„~:•;~ IM~mnMsMaeWa:baO'q'MaJqv~wu+md~a
' ',',•~C~' ,~1, ^ MPeWM nOdMdshi W L9~ /PPWNCI ~
. . ~ ' ;ti.,:
~n: i`: ; ara.aanen.mw ,n.un
>:8r...~:
~ :..6 ; .:A
. . . .
2S 1 05DC 2S 1 05DC
N y2 ~ F ~ I
O a g
O ~ xa xt ` g~*€~ ex.~~ i'c~r ~ar~fi ~ t.: ~ ~~~:~•s N¢>'~u e F i
W $L
$~~t~~~~{~~~"~~ v ZO~ ~ 3e c z~k~ k~ '~~~s~~``~'~t' g '~8 LL •~e ~ W~-~2~i~~
(n .7 i o! . 4 ~i w_ 4 p
~ r~'~„`~` x T ~ ' Q - n, a g°i
o Q T '2 WZ= ~
2
fi Ya } nc~a'en ~ R'~ . p~~ G w Yq w. , w! J 9 u~l+" m 4~ "f ~,.~:~a~u z o~ Q y~Q a
S x'~' u t.. .1~ w tl s2a :4~ ~~R, Q ,k yu~ '~a.~ ?~7 R~-.+,7 e. d O ~ W yyy
°co J~ ~ a
t?'. ~ : Zro °`r°__ :~,7Ae~' % 0 Q2 a
, ~ _ ~ ~ . ~?r " gW = ° $ zo ~ C
w o ~
~ ~
r
3
t I
~115,°~,i~'t tr.L a Syt 4 .~c5. ~3: ~ t p fi~ ~w ~t.~C* ~k~ }~y,`y,~~ 5•a~ ,i
4.p~ ~t ~ ~C O~ n 1f Y~ !y. ~le V' iS .n"M~M 43 .3(~~SSd 4~~.
S fi k Fk4'~ L d S ~;,'R
cn•lbM ~N ~i~. ~ a;~~ A ' 9W ~ 4~L k~ ~a.,~ ~~~u ~r ~k f"~ ~ '~'~~t,`~`Sa.~~ ~r # ~ltik ~i ~i~ PPi~
~R , b~a8 /~/~.5• ~ :;nr ~t 0~+2. 3! ~ 4T"~~~~.~r ~Q^ 7 ~ h~T.''~ ~~5?~ ~a~.:i¢ ~ ~~s Jv~~~~' ~~t~ *"'~~x3y~~~ ~1~
. .
7 ~S zY 'k t~. ;~P".4 ~&=k~~~.~ M . ~~~,,~~n`0.~~r` _ ..~e~'~IS`~7h.. t~ y p.~~ `~el~ ~if~r~:~Y ~y ,~;~;~~Y~~.~ M~~~a,.~~Y~ V. rt'~a',~*;,L,.,'~
karF~~~ ..T -'t~'ib ";('t''~' /w nr.. .~`a[ ~.k.k' ~..'..~'~F~k ~,~Y'~~?y`t~''A' ;".x,`,~Y,3,s~~'~..~~K1Y~~'~Y~_2■?~'~Nxk~d .~(~yS„~y'+~3ty,r~
e
. 5.-~ 4 ~ t- ~ - a 1i .,.g. a, _ r;'1.xt . - . . y~t . "~'~y ~~'e ? tri ;!.'in~ _ P'~ ti.x~ p ~zL { k2 s.}^ rr ~
. :d - q° ~y _ S ~~i~ :f t~ 0~` • :'~''B ",E~F.. : ~Xr}~Jy q c'~ s'~ . ?~°'~'~^~„F i~ . . y a! ~ ~ sS s 2s ~ ~ :,~"~;;~R f ~i s F"'r~l~'4~s~...+-~~. ~.~`i~ i'~'~
S
p ~,F {5
~~~"CS
~ C ' fi° 3 y, j~"• ~ RM-N-
5't = ♦ a n ' pi r,
,t ~ S - ~t~~~~'s n, 4 3~ ,3 +~"gF,.`"'S ~,4n f.~ +V`.~'~ '~b-~". ~-.rtis; I ~i~/q r~~~~,~F~. `~a. „~'^~'r5 .c:~,$.4t~3*';'~-~.~~~•a'~~:3g. .~1.v ~}~~`a~ ~ ~.~,Kj ~~,~ui`~a~~;1""tsC, f.7'~p~~,;::~
.bM 3NNb l~"~ t~'~''~'~~~`~~ af~Y~ £ ~~'~-kP~°.f'~~TT ~Y gi~~, f~'1~ ~~Yw~~131~4 n+,••~~;.~~
~ MS • ~ .a,r~ a~~a~ . ~ ~ 'r. y '~1 ~'x~t~~z .r'h~~~~~ ~a~o-. .~x 1 V, r xt'-,~~~f:.?'~ : ~ . '+.~L;,r~:. ~~'et~n'~ ~ 3 x t . ,~s
~t3' h x
NRISEn.o ~x~µ i~.
~9 s. y x'~~~~~,~, ~ ~ ' u E ~ • N~, ~
' e \ - ' ~ . r' :;,'S~a~1+ Mt7 " ii~ 'e~ `yg ~ 4 5 _ , tp . v~ a y ~
~ ri•.k fir ~ t~~~~i~ ' ~~rc': b µ~~i,~~~~ ~ `r} ; '
$ $ i
> a-
! l ~ ~ . ' ' '~"r °
W
> a 4, i
'~s ~ . ~ « • ti.~
H~ ' ~ i MY
co
MS • a» ^ W
>
LO
- • ~
"r1.A~.~:
ii ..........~+t. ~
~
oass~ '
, MS w.s
W ti~~ ma B Yta ~1 w~ HH :l~'°'xya~"P''r"~
Q F
1~~~~ a iLn ^ .•{;sl„~~:~''y~~
i . ~I^
• V ' . \ ~~Y~~`ES'~~'l~: '
g p !OM M{~'yy ~
Lu 1:3
,;:~~s;f,~ Z ~ ~ $ ~ + a ~ ~ ~ p
.
,
12 : a'rg' g g 8 p 1
C.JB i ty" g i6Fi ~ 80 A-)
~..Y;y y R~•.~
1~~ ' 1 • . ti . ' ,y ~ 1 ~
3f1N3AV HltiSl MS
11 , U , f
rH > ~ ~S ' ~Y
`p=riY ^ 4 V ~~1 ~1~ p w~ ~ R1 ~'SY^ . ' Spf~ S ~.r ~u ~j,W} 4 ~
g:;~
4~~~~~ri a'C
~ ~@~'a-w~
r ~
1 ! V ~b~'"'~ ~ ~5~.~. ! (006Z'tlol) f ~ ~ y~~y
~F~
BRISTLECONE
WAY
";9 i~ . y~ ~2~ ~ ~ y Q i~ . t e~ ~''v"°,.~" •'Y., t. ~osw wa . at'1j•'~A~ ~~.~~2'~"~`~ jy~ "Y~st~.`~r.
. a...::'~2k It'~ ,~i i ~i . ~ 'a~my+4r~~: _ a:.v } y.. . x:g~ .r~ ~ ~ r w ~ ,t►,A . .t`~'~W .m~, x .e .95
~ ~xr t a~+ . x • 1.., . Q ~ Te ~ ~j~ - k.'~'r~: L"y ~~•~C .1 ""r ~ jv~a+'+~ r gu~c ~
g `~~a' r '..a - ~`:S ~1v i w~ t a" a+ x g *3+ @ 'mW.l ~gp
~
~~v@ . ~5~~ C r .:~~c~ ~ -n. 3 ^ .,,~„'K* N: p~~ ~a~~~,~~ ~ • ~ ir.~'" Q ¢ a~~~Q ~ n`~~'~ i~;~~ st"vn aR_~
.1
k~!!31 H1991
~
} ~s ~~~±,p " 11,11
¢ m~n"F,y n ar ,wy, ~ . ~ h_` ?°q~' 'v°~ ,L wn . ~m~. tmn - s~11 h: ~1t ~ M'~t ~ ~I~ ~Lzw, O $ 9 ~ ' v'"~r - " ~i~i'°'~-~.H ;-OR1 ~c MS n.r, ~~..eF a
A~'~ m
W 'I~gU;,~~ •
~ $ (p
~~a~~,+~,.~~C~~~~ }~b~ "'~°.`":f'v~~~g+i6~Sr~~ ~ kDat~~i.~~.k iO~Ot'tw.r ."~pg~~~V,~~. ,R~~~ .~~[M;Q T~'~'q~~~"~f. r,
D v~i4sk l4'4p x 'i.
y~j r.~~.•vt... Y& ~ ~ ,.,~-t K '~,Y ~n4+a • F i~~s^J y 'r""vi': . e ~ iB 'i .3' r~i ~tr 3 vt
~S+.+~a~~''l~. A,P
S 1,05 ~D 2S 1 05DD
p~Tq tS+ ~ . -
^.,;.}r"• Y{s. . s R~ h~:,~n~ ~y r.;... t-*~-": ~ . r:YE",~En,mr,.C`~
<ac'~itr.~. 3,.*"~ *..y > `s ~~~:iuw .._.a.taf~+cd.:,,...r_w, SW KUPSANnLANEbB
"al
x,"~ ~ebr
-.7.;.
71ao f, j ne. R ~5~ caaw
t 4 t S~t i n sYC- ~r.? >
~ ~'a s~ro~' S ~ -"~..tw°''-• ~ a coum y.
N~~
~ ~ IRS
B Z~tt~~:
,r`` N
f'c~j'x 1 k ''4^ ~ A m
~ x^
> ~
~ D 4
i .
ffll ~ ~~tt a~'~ tnM
i 43 n ~
i~x eooo ~ asm e~ 0
l r ~r aa° x~i~:
4 G'7 rr; sv Kqy ••+F^,~ a.ss~c ~ I zot . 5500 8 nm. non. -i ~+'",'yi"r~t-
q 3400 8 D ~,~z~+'~~~~~5 •`$~.~~-~~-.a~uFS J,~~`
.inm
S~~r~I s.nK ~ne~ a 4100
z jx'.~-a - t7 i 10 4 ~ y 1,
~ Y~ak~nf k~
1-70
t~,+ 2N ~
tr}
~,r ~ BCOO~~ • 418 0 tnACTw• ~s~i~, t~y'•y, ~5
, ~z~• s ~ r~ WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGOD
~Y! ~ r,~~rr ~~u~y, ~'i - % ,40
SEl l4 SE114 SECTION 05 T2S fl1 W W.M.
e3oo 43g ~ y `~r -53 ~ a ~'"'"r BCAIE 1" ~ 7~'
.a E • s1 i~ ~ tc~ l~e~ ~ ~
6200~ 38
µayn~`~~E~t~'y~f'Y'~`~~~~i~~ S ~y / m M° an~uwvuxa ~ii ` rx+ ~p~t~ ~E~ ~QRt= 6 xv4$ 7 ~ ~
~ME~c wsr~ L) 22 i ~ 9100~
°3°~° l 7
~ Cg f11 S Iu 3ppp Z'~ 9 ~"T-~~-d x,.Lg~ `«-t~ t ~ ~sr
~ .t ~F~t~~x . .,r•~' ~ _ tem me .m.
400 E$"~'^p} •c a frds` Y +u Y p~,t . ~a ~
rf>s„- ~~r 'Z ~SW SEAVIEW LANEh r~nx'v
~.~a$_ a.w~c 690o s~wsY 30 29.~ ZBY 27 -28 76:
~ $ ~~ta ,y i~y't~ 31 32~ ~33 31 .95
4m
23-73
5a n~ ~"t J xs a.e.n . ~ g ~eoo 8 2eao g ~GO i~ I k~ t
67W y zs f7 ♦ 0 { t 5FOAAOWTIOMA, YAPSY/SRWNWEBSITEA
Ice».a7a V .~?t
~ 1in n°m 4$~}A~S~ 4;~ Nr1Yt0.1►1fh~ll~1011•0/Ui .
Y ~t~'Y~
4000 8 27(10
380~ 26 tl a
wN
€/3I T
w p~M,~f~.~'~".r' sro g % 7u w um
ze
b = ~ ~ . ~as~c fr
*"-3 MRV
e'r h'` ob Y~f~iy' 1400 wa ~V •y 8f00
t
< V
w+wa C^ •.a ~c ~ ao ~ T,~ V1;T
1
ty
w ~ t'~` s5oo 4., ~ ' + t`~`"~T~$ i ~i~ r~i oo
ae R VF! 9iLO~~ 'n,,~"~~:~. ~CCC~ i~
a 4~ Y~ - a$:t• ~mw+`ra
5Y00 , . J~'~.
4t s~+wm.a y. ° ' . 5 BO 2
~,~,-r a ~.r^4r;' mo ~ ~ a,a t ° ~,~~eormaotswr. zsiasoo
ieao 2 ,
f ~ 1oLV0o~7~~
~3'~w~c ~lks.. ocee.na ~ wo.,~c ~x° 74PO
2100
t .~esiwcf f" ~ro~.un ~K ANNE%ATION CER FlED
2101 BY~-
rc~ . cs..ooa 1700 OCT 0 Z 2006
's?'¢~ ZV~~S 1a~c WASHINCTONCOUNfYABT
&ry`+Ri j~• CARTOGRAPHY
.~~x nF a
c ~s s € ~ a eoo ~ »oo
iaz~"~ euzr~ +3s: ° .~e~c a.nic mw ~ A wi ~ saonc 1~ J5"~ f +'~x - -
13o0
N .nnt zviY~W:~. ' • . . .
-c ~ ~ ;p$q$EE: FebruarpY/2~3. 2006
r~Y 23~73 ~
ONL~~// '/~{jE~`~ N
~ i i~ 1 1 IQ UAM ? ~ 1_ H . +d► ~ fi`~`': y~ 3 x'~i ~i rV~ V~~
~Osr~+d~..aonr
~-4~r . 600 I i 1600 Mowas~+rA4 mrM~iM.~
sl p~awbtiYrmaM~~+ew'
1200 ~ r ~ ~ao~c F~h~r 1 aiwAO~H'Om~Na /romsltlw~
I I ~1 1
p3pp = 2v00 ,~~t~sx: afr Ybeera/KWe~Mx
x~C t r=t ~ §7
F 3_7
A
C R111?L) G • Y G6~.~iU ~C~ i.~ j tY/J`rc
hF~.. .
. _ ip~„y ~:yy - _ . _ . . \ \ \ tl \\\v\\\ . . Y
,~r .4_...s< )c i Tn~nn
~ ~:x~.~,~;.~., t ._...v. , . . . , . _ . . -
2 of Ti ARD
O
V m GEOORAPMIC INfORMAiION BYBiEM
m ~ ZCA2006-00002
Cach Creek Area
W
S Annexation
ORS FE R
F ~R aa ` .
J~ <
PROPOSED Q . m ~,RA o
ANNEXATION a£ FBENI) R"' DUR • ~ RD
AREA ~
. Tigard Area Map
City of Tigard City Limits
~ Proposed
Annexation Area
Sunrise Lan I
a .
. a N
cr
J
a
Infortnatlon on Wa map is for general loeation ony erM
should heveAfied with Ne Developmenl5ervices Division.
13125 SW Hatl BNd
Tipard, OR 97223
(503) 639-4171
Community Development , nt~Jn~„~,,•.a.u~ro.or.us
Plot date: Oct 6, 2006; C:UnagicWIAGIC03.APR
~ ~ EXHIBITt\
Agenda Item:
Hear' Date: September 26, 2006 Time: 7:30 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
CITY COUNCIL -
-
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD,.OREGON
120 DAYS = N/A
SECTION I. APPLICATION SIJMMARY
FILE NAME: CACH CREEK AREA ASJNEXATION
CASE NOS: Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2006-00002
APPLICANT/
COORDINATOR City of T~' atd OWNER: City of Tigard
(Multiple Contact ~eth St. Amand Contact Dennis Koellemzeier
applicants): 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 13125 SW Hall Blvd
T'igard, OR 97223 Tigazd, OR 97223
OWNER T~' ga~d Water District OWNER: Jon DyeL
PO Box 23000 PO Box 848
Tigacd, OR 97223 Lake Oswego, OR 97304
OWNER: Sun Ridge Builders, Inc./
Btentwood Homes
Contact John Noffz
15170 SW Finis Lane
'I"igard, OR 97224 "
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting annexation of-~ve~~ eleven (11) parceis and the
Sunxise Lane right-of-wap containing 4~ a total of 40.93 acres into the Citp of
Tigard
LOCATION: Abuttinp; and west of Sunrise Lane, and abutting and north of SW Bull Mountain
Road, including right-of-way on SW Sunase Lane; Was on County Tax
Assessor's Map No. (WCTM) 2S105DB, Tax Lots 6100, 620 & 400; WCTM
2S108AB, Tax Lots 1200 & 1201; WCTM 2S105DC, Tax Lots 100, 201, 300 & 400;
and WCTM 2S105DD, Tax Lots 200 & 300.
CURRENT
ZONING
DESIGNATION: R-6 District (Residential6 Units Per Aere),. The purpose of the Washington Countp
R-6 District is to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for areas
designated for residential development at no more than six (6) units per acre and no
less than ftve (5) units per acte, except as specified by Section 300-2 or Section 303-6.
. The intent of the R-6 District is to provide the opportuniry for more flegibility in
development than is allowed in the R-S District
CACH CREEK AREA t1NNEXt1TION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 1 OF 12
• } _ i
. EQUNALENT
CITY. ZONING
DESIGNATION: R-7• Medium-Densit_~ Reszdenrial Disrrict. The City of Tigard R-7 zoning district is
designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached singie-family
homes with or without accessoxy 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 perinitted outright. Some civic and
institutionai uses axe also permitted condirianally.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: ORS Chapter 222, Metro Code Chapter 3.09, Comp rehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10,
Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390.
SECTION H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
- ¢i '"•'e° ' .y • '+~Fi~' -~~:~:,,r"',~ r;~.~~w'S`y. , y _ ...5~ ~~.,sl:
9 q au'~ ~v~ Ro ~ • ' ~ yi ~.?F.~ . t5~ . ~ ~ . , ; ~ . - .
J t ' y ~µK. i~~r~ F. r~s^y . r :.t a.s:.'te-~ _ ax'- ~ + ;v'e5~ .-%srl ''~d~_ ~.sa-.~.i . _.+'..%.c?~?}.:;~
SECTION III. SACRGROUND INFORMATION
Site Information:
The subject site is located along the western boundary of the City of Tigard; the majority of Sunrise Lane
is conti.guous to the City lisnits. The site is part of unincorpotated Bull Mountain and the City of Tigard's
Urban Setvice Axea.
The subject site is predomi.nandy 'm public ownership and is either currendp used for public purposes or
will be in the future. T'he City intends to use the publiciy owned iand for the purposes of a reseivois and
parkland. The Menlor Reservoir ptovides public watex stocage faciiities for the Tigard Water District. The
subject site also includes land banked for the Cache Creek Naturai Atea and futute public water facilities:
The City of Tigard tY/ater Di.rtributzon System H_ydraulic Study (Map 2040) shows a futute 550'-elevation-zone
Reservou #1 located on City-owned land adjacent to Sunrise Lane.
The subject site also includes tesidential land (vacant and in current use). There axe four primary structuxes
located on the subject site: the Menlor Reservoir and three homes. The Cixy approved a lot line
adjustment (MIS2006-00012) for 2S105DC, Tax Lot 100 on July 7, 2006. The two southernmost
residential parcels (2S108AB, Tax Lots 1200 and 1201) axe currendy under development review; the ownet
has submitted separately a land-use application for a 17-lot subdivision with a total of 30 dwelling units
(SUB2006-00003). The application was submitted to the City on January 31, 2006 when the City still
provided development services to the Urban Service Area as agxeed in the Washington CounLy - Tigard Urban
Services Intergotiernmental Agreement (terminated July 20, 2006). This application is a separate land-use decision
with its own set of review criteria and will not be addressed in this repoxt.
The majoriry of the subject site contains steep slopes, defined as 25% slope or greater. The City of Tigard
Community Development Code requires Sensitive Lands permits for development on paxcels with steep
CACH CREEK AREA r1NNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 2 OF 12
. ' ~ ~
slopes. There axe two wetlands designa.ted as Title 3 wedands in the subject atea. Goal 5 and Bull
Mountain Communiry Pian natural resouxces exist on a majority or porrions of the subject tax lots,
protection for which will be considered if or when any of rhe proposed territory develops.
SECTION N. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS
State: ORS Chaptex 222
RegionaL• Metro Code Chapter 3.09
City: Comptehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10, Community Development Code Chapters I8320 and 1$.390.
A. CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18)
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the .relevant portions of the Comrnuniry
Development Code based on the following findings:
1. Chapter 18.320.020: An~roval Process and Standards.
B. Appcoval 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 sufficieat capacihy to provide service
for the proposed annexation area; and
The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan's Urbanization Chapter (Policy 10.1.1) defines seivices as
watex, sewet, dtainage, streets, police, and fire protection. Each setvice is addressed below.
Policy 10.1.1 further defines capacity as "adequate capacity, ot such services to be made available,"
to serve the parcel "if developed to the most intense use allowed," and "will not significandy
reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land in the City of Tigard."
The proposed annexation territory is currendy zoned R-6, a Washi.ngton County residential zone
designated for xesidential development at no more than six (6) units per acxe and no iess than five
(5) units pex acre. With annexation, the subject site's zoning would change to R-7 pex Table 320.1
(Tide 18). This equivalent city zoning provides for medium-density, singie-familp residential with a
minimum residential lot size of 5,000 square feet.
As noted earlier, the subject site's current and planned uses are mostly public: watet provision and
a natural area. The property deeds for certain parcels limit the City to these two uses. If the
remaining 9.14 residential acres were developed to their designated capacity of 7 units per gross
acre, without allowance fox the sensitive lands present, the sites could accommodate apptoximately
63 units total. This gross calculation breaks down as follows: two northeast paxcels (Dyer), 21 units; two southwest parcels (Brentwood), 42 units.
These figutes were used for Citp department evaluations of Policy 10.1.1 of the available services.
When these sites develop, the applicant will be xequired to connect to public service facilities. The
land-use xeview process will identify specific service provisions and xequire additional facilities or
upgrades as appropriate, as well as consider the sensitive lands present.
Water - City of Tigard Public Works. The City of Tigard's water spstem has the capaciry to
pxovide the minimum State of Oregon watet service requirements for the proposed annexation,
CACH CREEK ARF.t1 t1NNEXt1TION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 3 OF 12
. ~ 1
' accoxding to Public Works Dept Project Engineer Rob Mutchison. Murchison's xeview c,oncluded
that the parcels developed to the most intense use allowed will not sigruficandy teduce the level of
services, available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. Atta.chment A
ineludes Murchison's Aug. 16, 2006, memo and a map of water serviceability to the annexation
atea that identifies azea water lines. Mu.tchison's memo also notes that the pxoposed development
(Brentwood) may require upsizing and a S" connection to the existing system; again, that
application is a separate land-use decision with its own set of review criteria and will not be
addressed in this report The land-use review process will identify specific setvice provisions and
require additional facilities ox upgxades as apptopriate based on the specific development proposal.
Tigard City Engineet Gus Duenas further confirms that the City has aclequate capacity
("Memorandum," Attachment B) and states that "the City has the abiliry and capacity to determine
what specific improvements may be needed and the ability aud capacity to ptovide service through
its existing system and any additional in£rastructure that will be requirecl when development
occuss."
Sewer - Clean Water Services/City of Tigard. Tigard Citq Engineer Gus Duenas
("Memorandum," Attachment B) reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:
"Sanitary sewer service is provided at the retail level bp the City and at the wholesale level by Clean
Watet Services (CWS). As to the capacity of the City's system, the Citp is capable of pxoviding
reta.il level sewer service without significant reduction in the level of services provided to
developed and undeveloped properties in the City. As with the water spstem, some local lines mill
be reqizired to be provided bp the developer at the time of the development The City is prepazed
to accept, operate and maintai.n public sewers constructed within the annexed area. Sewer serv-ice
can be extended from CWS facilities in Menlor Lane and 154`h Avenue located north of the site.
The City is capable of determining what additional facilities will be requ.ired and of administering
all portions of the retail sanitary sewer system, both existing and future additions in the a.rea to be
annexed, without significant reduction in the level of services ptovided to properties in the City."
Drainage - Clean Water Services/Ciry of Tigard. Tigard City Engineet Gus Duenas
("Memorandum," Attachment B) reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:
"Stotm drainage service, like sanitary sewer service, is provided joindy by the City and CWS. Site
specific drainage facilities will be requireii at the time of development and will be developed and
constructed in accordance with City standards. The retail system as the capacity to provide
adequate storm drainage without significant reduction in the level of services provided to
developed and undeveloped properties in the City."
Streets - City of Tigard Capital Construction & Transportation Division. The City's
Transportation System Plan (TSP) standards applp. The ptoposed annexation territory is located
adjacent to Sunrise Lane, which is designated a neighborhood route in the City's Transportation
System Plan (TSP). In addition, the southernmost portion of the proposed annexation territory
(WCTM 2S108AB01201) fronts direcdy on SW Bull Mountain Road, which the Citp's TSP
designates as a collector. Additional roads to serve the proposed annexation territory include 15&
Avenue, Roshak Road, 154`h Avenue, and other surrounding streets. Tigard City Engineer Gus
Duenas ("Memorandum," Attachment B) reviewed the annexation proposal and concluded that
some imptovements to these streets may be required as part of the development of the annexed
area, including extension of existing streets into the area. Howevex, Duenas determuled that the
CACH CREEK r1REA ANNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAC;F. 4 ()F 19
.
t • ' `
• Citp can provide services to this site, and "doing so will not significandy reduce the level of
services to developed and undeveloped land wirhin the City of Tigard."
Police - City of T.igard Police Depattment. The City of Tigatd's Police Departrnent has
reviewed the annexation proposal and stated that the proposed annexation would not impede
, cutrent levels of service to existing developed and undeveloped areas in the Ciry of Tigaxd. If the
atea is anriexed, Tigard Police can provide adequate services to the proposed atea. (Attachment C).
Fire - Tuaiatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R). Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue ('I'VF&R)
already serves the proposed annexation territory. Additionally, TVF&R reviews all subdivision
development proposais and annexation proposals for the City of Tigard and would provide
additional comments at.that time.
Based upon this review, staff finds that all 12ublic services (as defined by the Comprehensive Plan)
are available to the proposed anuexation terntory and all public services have sufficient capacit3~ to
pxovide service to the proposed annexation tersitory.
2. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing ordinance ptovisions have been
satisfied.
Three Comprehensive Plan policies applp to proposed annexation: 2.1.1, 10.1.1., and 10.1.2. Staff
has dete.nnined that the proposal has satisfied the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies based
on the following findings:
Policy 2.1.1: Citizen Involvement. The City shall maintain an ongoing cirizen involvement
program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be invobed in all phases
of the planning process.
The City maintains an ongoing citizen involvement program. To assure citizens will be provided an
oppottunity to be involvecl in all phases of the planning process, the Ciry provides notice for Type
N land-use applications. The City posted, mailed and published notice of the public heating as
follows. The City posted the hearing notice at four public places on August 11, 2006: Tigard
Library, Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center, and in the genetal vicin.ity of the proposed
territory on SW Sunrise Lane and on SW Bull Mountain Road near SW Roshak Road The City
published notice of the hearing in T'be Tigard Tualatin Shenvood Time.r fot two successive weeks
(Septembex 7, 2006 and September 14, 2006) priot to the September 26, 2006, public hearing. The
City also mailed notice to all intexested paxties and surrounding property owners within 500 feet on
August 7, 2006. In addition, the City mai.ntains a list of interested parties organized by geography.
Notice was mailed to interested parties in the West area on August 7, 2006, which includes former
Citizen Involvement Team contacts and CPO 4B, the citizen participation organization for the
area. Staff finds that this j2olicy is met
Policy 10.1.1: Urbanization. Pcior to the annexation of land to the City of Tigard,
a) the City shall review each, of the following services as to adequate capacity, or such services to
be made available, to serve the parcel if developed to the most intense use allowed, and will not
significandy reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within the
Ciry of Tigard: 1. Water; 2. Sewer; 3. Drainage; 4. .Streets; S. Police; and 6. Fire Protecrion.
As addressed under 18.320.020 above, adequate seroice is available to the proposed annexation
CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXAT'ION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 5 OF 12
• tetritory. Upon annexation, the proposed territory will be zoned R-7, a medium-density single-
farnilp residential zone with a mi.nimum residential lot size of 5,000 square Eeet. The pxivately
owned ptoperties have an estima.ted maximum density of 63 units (not taking into account
sensitive lands).' Tf they develop,. the developet(s) will be xequited to connect the properties to
public seivice facilities, such as sewer, storm drainage and water, and ptovide the necessary street
unprovements. Based on comments from Citp of Tigatd staff, there is adequate capacity to serve
the annexation area (water, sewer, drainage, streexs, police, fire pzotect'ton) if developed to the most
intesise use allowed,.and it will not significantlp teduce the level of services availa.ble to developed
and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard.
The City of Tigard department of PubJic Watks has reviewed the annexation proposal and states
that the City's water system can provide the minimutn Sta,te of Oregon water service requirements
foi the proposed territory based on the maxinum density permitted. Public Works states that
water is available in quantity and quality and has not indicated that there would be a teduction in its
capacitp to ptovide water to the proposed annexation tetritory or reduce the level of sesvice to the
entire City. The Police Department reviewed the ptoposal and has no objections. T'he
Engineering Department reviewed the proposal and has no objections. The Engineexing
Depaxtment confitmed that sewer service, storm drai.nage and street access are avai]a.ble to tlie site.
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R), the current providet to the ptoposed tetritory., did not
raise any objections. Staff concludes that there is adequate capacity to setve the 12roposed territogy
Lwater sewer, drainage streets,police, fite 12totection) if developed to the most intense use
allowed. and will not significandy reduce the level of services available to developed and
undevelol2ed land within the City of Tigard.
b) If required by an adopted capital improvements program ordinance, the applicant shall sign and
record with Washington County a nonremonsttance agreement regatding the fol(owing: l. The
fotmarion of a local imptovement district (L.I.D.) fot any of the following services that.could be
provided through such a distcict. The extension oc impiovement of the foliowing. a) Watec, b)
Sewer, c) Drainage, and d) Streets. 2. The fotmation of a special district foc any of the above
services or the inclusion of the property into a special service district for any of the above services.
This criterion does not apply: No capital improvements progxam tequites a nonremonstrance
agreement for this area.. Some urban services aze already available for the proposed annexation
territory; others are available nearby and would requite connections from the ptoposed annexation
area. Howevet, these public facility requitements wiil be assigned as part of any subdivision review
when an application is submitted.
c) The City shall provide urban setvices to areas within the Tigacd Ucban Planning Atea ot within
the Urban Growth Boundary upon annexation.
1he Tigard Urban Planning .Area (as defined in the Washington County - Tigard Urban Planning Area
Agreement (CTP.AA guly 2006); see Attachment D of application submittal) includes the proposed
annexation territory. The Ciry is the designated uxban seivices pxovider for the services defined in
the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA) (2002) and subsequent operating agreements: police;
parks, recreation and open space; roads and stteets; sanitary sewex and storm watet (thxough an
operating agxeement with Clean Water Services); and water service. Upon annexation, those
services will be provided according to the City's current policies. Staff finds that this nolicy is met.
i Maximum densiry was calculated using fozmula pzovided in Code Chaptez 18.715.
CACH CREEK r1REA ANNEXt1TION
ZCA2006-00002 . PAGE 6 OF 12
. • I ~
Policy 10.1.2: Utbanization. Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based
on findings with respect to the following: a) The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or
"island". of unincorpotated territory; or, b) °The annexation will not create an inegular boundary
that makes it difficult fot the police in an emergency situation to detecmine whether the parcel is
within or outside the City; c) The Police Department has commented upon the annexation; d) the
land is iocated within the Tigard Area of Interest and is contiguous to the City boundary; e) The
annexation can be accommodated by the services iisted.in 10.11(a).
a) The proposed annexation does not elirniiiate an existing pocket or island of unincorpoxated
territoty. It does xemove portions of an existing pocket ("Dyer" property) and would
incorporate City-owned land and publiclp owned land that provides Tigard residents with
public. services.
b) As stated eatlier, only 9.14 acres of the proposed annexation area are in private ownership and
zoned £or xesidential development. The temaini ng acreage consists of land in public ownetship
for public services, including land fot the public water system and a natural area, which require
limited services. The City of Tigaxd Poiice Department has reviewed the proposed annexation
and has no objections. The department stated (Attachment C) that "the pLOposed boundary foY
the annexation does not appear to piesent anp obstacles for emergency response by the Police
Departrnent." It should also be noted here that the owners of three adjacent ptoperties on
Sunrise Lane have expressed the desire to join this proposed annexation (15180, 14625, and
15110.SW Sunxise Lane); the annexation of those additionai properties would eliminate
adclitional pockets and create a more regular boundary. However, the current proposal does
not include those propexties.
c) As shown in B. above, the City of Tigard Police Departtnent has commented on the
annexation.
d) The UPAA O'uly 2006) includes the pxoposed annexa.tion territory within Tigard's Axea of
Interest The proposed annexation territory is contiguous to the City along the site's east
boundary and Sunrise Lane.
e) Lasdy, as section 10.1.1.(a) demonstrated, the annexation can be accommodated by the
following services: watex, sewer, dra.inage; streets; police; and fire protection.
Therefore, staff finds that the proposed annexation meets Policy 10.1.2.
Policy 10.1.3: Urbanization. ITpon annexation of land into the City which carries a Washington
County zoning designatioa, the City of Tigard shall assign the City of Tigard zoning district
designation which most closely conforms to the county zoning designarion.
Chapter 18320.020 C of the Cornmunity Development Code pxovides specifics on this
conversion.
The proposed annexation texjitory's Washington Counry designation is R-6. Table 320.1
suminarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations; R-6 Counry zoning
converts to the Ciry's R-7 zoning. As this is a Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) application, upon
approval and execution of the proposed annexation, the territory wili assume R-7 zoning to
conform with the table below. Additionally, the City's Comptehensive Plan designation for
medium-density residential will be applied to this area.
CACH CREEK ARF.A ANNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAtrF. 7 nF 1,)
T.4BLE 320.1
CONVERSION TABLE FOR COEIITY AND C1TY PLAN 1ND ZQNING DESIGNATI01iS
WasWngton Connty Land L1se Citg af Tigard Zaning Cit}- of ISgard
Dishicts/Plan Desigua4ton Plan Desiswation
R-5 Res. 5 units/acre R-4.5 SFIL 7,500 sq. R. Low density 1-5 unitslacre
R-6 Res. 6 units/acre R-7 SFR 5,000 sq. ft. MedL densiSy 6-I2 uaits.lacre
R-9 Res. 9 units/acce. R-12 Mutti-familp 1 Z units,'acre Med. density 6-1 2 units/acre
R-12 Res. 12 nnitslaae R-12 Multi-family 12 unitsiacre Med. deasity 6-12 uuitsiacre
R-IS Res. 15 wutslacre R-25 Muiti-family 25 unitsiacre lviedinm-Higb deusity I3-25
uaits/acce
R-24 Res. 24 uuits/acres R-ZS Mutti-family 25 units/acre Medium-fligh density 13-25
umits/acre
Office Comiuerciai C-P Couuuereia2 Professional CP Commercial Professional
NC Neighborhood Commercial CN Neighborhood Commercial CN Aleighborhood Commercial
CBD Commercial Btuiuess CBD Commercial Business CBD Commercial Bussness
Disfrict District District
GC General Connnecrial CG General Commercial CCs General Commercial
IIND IndusUial I-L Lieht Indnstcial Light Indnshiala
Chapter 18.320.020
C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations.
Tke comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the propecty shall be the City's
zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comptehensive plan map
designarion. The assignment of these designations shall occur automarically and concurrently with the
annexation. In the case of land which catries County designations, the City shall convert the County's
comprehensive plan map and zoning designarions to the City designations which are the most similar. A
zone change is re.quired if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or zoning map
designarion 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 apptoved.
As the previous section demonstrated, the City of Tigatd R-7 zoning district is the most similar to
Washington County's R-6 zoning district. The proposed territory is currently R-6 and will automatically
become R-7 upon annexation. This zone conversion will occur concurrendy with the annexation ptocess.
There have been no tequests for zoning other than R-7.
City of Tigard Community Development Code
2. Chapter 18.390.060: Type N Procedure
Annexations are ptocessed by means of a Type N procedure, as govemed by Chaptex 18.390 of the
Community Development Code (Tide 18) using standards of approval contained in 1$.390.020(B), which
wete addtessed in the previous section. Chapter 18.390 tequires City Council to hold a hearing on an
annexation. It also iequizes the City to provide notice at least 10 days priot to the hearing by mail and to
publish newspaper notice; the City mailed notice on August 7, 2006, and published public notice in The
Tigard Tualatin Shenvood T'ime.r for two successive weeks (Septembet 7, 2006, and September 14, 2006,) priox
to the September 26, 2006, public hearing.
CACH CREEK A.REA ANNEXAT'ION
ZCtY2006-00002 PAGE 8 OF 12
Additionally, Chapter 18.390.060 sets forth five decision-making considerations fot a Type IV decision:
1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197;
The Ciry's Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged by the i,and Conseroation and Development
Comniission to be in compliance with state pla,nning gbals. As reviewed above, the annexat'ton proposal
meets the existing Comprehensi"ve Plan policies and therefote is in compliance with state planning goals.
2. Any federal ot state statutes or regulations fouttd applicable;
ORS 222:
State law (ORS 222.120(4)(b), ORS 222.125, ORS 222.170(1) and (2)) allows for a city to annex conriguous
territoiy when ownezs of land in the proposed te.rtitory to be annexed submit a petition to the legislative body
of the city. ORS 222.120 requires the city to hold a public hearing before its iegislative bodp (Ciry Council)
and provide public notice to be published once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of the
hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and shall cause notices of the hearing to be
posted in four public places in the ciry for a like period.
The property owners (or theit representa.tives) of all 11 patcels have submitted signed petitions for
annexation to the Ciry. The proposed annexation territory is contiguous to the City along the site's east
boundary and Sunrise Lane.
The City published public notice in The Tigard Tualatin Shenvood Times for two successive weeks (September
7, 2006, and September 14, 2006,) prior to the September 26, 2006, public hearing and posted the hearing
notice at four public places on .August 11, 2006: Tigard Library, Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center,
and in the general viciniry of the proposed territory. Staff finds that the ptovisions of ORS 222 have been
met.
3. Any applicable METRO regulations;
Chapter 3.09 of the Metro Code (Local Government Boundary Changes) inciudes standards to be
addressed in annexation decisions, in addition to local and state review standards. Note that the report is
available 15 days befote the hearing (September 11, 2006, for an Septembet 26, 2006, hearing,). Staff has
determined that the a1212licable METRO tegulations (IVletto Code 3 09 040(,b) &~dl) have been met based
on the following findin,gs:
Metro 3.09.040 (b)
(b) Not later than 15 days prior to the date set far a change decision, the apptoving entity shall make
available to the public a report that addtesses the criteria in subsecrions (d) and (g) below, and that
includes at a minimum the following:
(1) The extent to which urban services presendy are available to serve the affected territory
including any extra territorial extensions of service;
As addressed previously in this report, urban services axe available to the affected territory.
(2) A description of how the proposed boundary change complies with any urban service provider
agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065 between the affected enrity and all necessary parties;
As addressed pxeviously in this report, the annexation proposal complies with all applicable
provisions of urban service provider agreements, UPAA (2006); and TUSA (2002).
CACH CREEK t1REA ANNEX-qTION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 9 OF 12
. (3) A descciption of how the proposed boundary change is consistent with the compcehensive land
use plans, public facility plans, regional framework and functional plans, regional urban growth
goals and objectives, urban planning agreements and similar agreements of the affeated entiity and
of all necessary parties;
As addressed previouslp in this repoxt, the annexation ptoposal complies with all applicable
policies of the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and urban service ptovidex agreeinents {UPAA
(2006) and TUSA (2002). The ptoposed annexarion texritory is within the Urban Growth Boundary
and subject to the Regional Framework Plan a.nd Utban Growth Management Functional Plan
provisions. There aze no specific applicable standards ot criteria for boundary changes in the
Regional Framework Plan or the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. However, the
City's Comprehensive Plan and Development Code have been amended to comply with Metro
functional plan requirements. Bp complying with the Development Code and Comprehensive
Plan, the annexation is consistent with the Functional Plan and.the Regionai Framework Plan.
(4) Whether the ptoposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the affected territocy
from the legal boundary of any necessary party; and
Tlze ptoposed territory will remain within Washington County but will be required to be
withdrawn from the boundary of the Tigatd Water Disttict, the Washington County Enhanced
Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington
County Stceet Lighting Disttict #1, and the Washington County Vector Contcol District upon
completion of the annexation.
(5) The proposed effective date of the decision.
The public hea.ring will take place September 26, 2006. If the Council adopts findings to approve
ZCA2006-00002, the effective da.te of the annexation will be October 26, 2006.
Metro Code 3.09.040.(d)
(d) An apptoving entity's, final decision on a boundary change shall include findings and conclusions
addressing the following criteria:
1. Consistency with direcdy applicable provisions in an ucban service pcovider agreemettt or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
As addressed previously in this application, the annexation proposal complies with all applicable
provisions of urban service provider agxeements (UPAA (2006) and the TTJSA (2002)). The TUSA
i.ncludes the proposed annexation territory. The agreement states that the County and City will be
supportive of annexations to the City, and the City shall endeavor to annex the Bull Mountain area
in the near to mid-term (by 2005-2007, as projected in the TUSA. The pxoposed annexation is in
the Bull Mountain Area and is contiguous to city li.mits. Therefore. the proposed annexarion is
consistent with these agteements.
2. Consistency with directly appiicable provisions of ucban pianning or other agreements, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a necessary
PartY;
The UPAA (2006) includes the proposed annexation territory. T'he City has followed all processing
and notice requi.cements in the UPA.A., providing Waslvngton County with 45-day notice prior to
the public hearing. The agreement states that "so that all ptopexties witivn the Tigard Urban
Service Area will be served by the City, the County and City will be supportive of annexations to
CACH CREEKAREA ANNEXATION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 10 OF 12
.i . , • ' ' }
, the City." The City also ptovided notice to the affected CPO (CPO 4B) per the agreement. The
annexation ptoposal is consistent with this agreement.
3. Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
As previously stated in this report, this proposal meets all applicable City of Tigatd Comprehensive
Plan ptovisions. T'his criterion is satisfied.
4. Consistency with specific ditectly applicable standatds or ctiteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plan;
This criterion was addtessed under 1Vletro Code 3.09.440(b). By complying with the City of Tigard
Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is consistent vvith the
Functional Plan and the Regional Framework Plan.
5. Whether the pcoposed change will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The ptoposed annexation will not intetfere cvith the provision of public facilities ot services
because it is consistent with the texms of the T(ISA (2002), which ensutes the timely, orderlp, and
efficient extension of putilic facilities and urban sexvices; it is contiguous to existing city limits and
services; and lasdy, urban setvices are available to the proposed annexation terrttory and have not
been found to significandy teduce existing service levels.
6. The territory lies within the Urban Growth Boundary; and
The ptoposed territory is with.in Metrds Urban Growth Boundary.
7. Consistency with othet applicable critetia fot the boundary change in question under state and
local law.
In previous sections, this report reviewed the proposal's consistency with other applicable ctiteria
and found it to be consistent.
(Tigatd CDC 19.390.060)
4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and
As demonstrated in pxevious sections of this xeport, the proposed annexation is consistent with, and
meets, all applicable comprehensive plan policies.
5. Any applicable pcovisions of the City's impiementing ordinances.
There are no specific implementing oxdinances that apply to this proposed annexation. Chapter 18 of the
City Code will apply to development of the pxoperty.
SECTION VTI. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Pubiic Works, Engineering and Police Departments have reviewed the proposal and
have no objections to it and have not indicated that the pxoposed annexation would reduce theit capacity
CACH CREEK AREA t1NNEXATlON
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 11 OF 12
,
• to provide services to the proposed annexation territory or reduce the level of City sexvices. Full
comments aze provided in the attachments listed below.
Attachment A: "Memorandum," from Rob Murchison, Public Works Dept. Project Engineer
Attachment B: "Memorandum," from Gus Duenas, Engineering Division
Attachment C: E-mail from Jim WolC Tigard Police Department
SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the annexation ptoposal and has no objections, comments or
conditions.
~ 13 z oot.
fKE ARRD ' y Eng DATE
Assistant Planner
0o4
REVIEWED BY: Coffee DATE
Community Development Ditector
CACH CREEK A.REA ANNEXA'TION
ZCA2006-00002 PAGE 12 OF 12
ADDENDUM1
MEMORANDUM
-
TO: Mayor Dirksen, City Council
CC: Craig Prosser, Tom Coffee, Dick Bewersdorff
FROM: Emily Eng
RE: ZCA2006-00002 Cach Creek Area Annexation
DATE: October 5, 2006
This memo identifies changes to the Cach Creek Area Annexation Pxoposal. On September
25, 2006, applicant John Noffz of Sun Ridge Builders, withdrew the BYentwood Estates
property (Washington Counry Tax Map 2S108AB, Tax Lots 1200 and 1201), changing the
original proposal. In addition, one tax lot numbex (2S105DC, Tax Lot 100) has been
removed because it doesn't exist and was incorrecdy shown on the tax map. City Council
held a public hearing for the annexation on September 26, 2006 and decided to continue the
hearing on October 10, 2006 and leave the xecord open for additional information and
public comment. The supplemental exhibits below have been attached to this memo:
Su2121emental Exhibit A: Supplemental Findings in Support of the Cach Creek Area
Annexation
Supplemental Exhibit B: Additional Information and Public Comments Submitted to
the Record
Supi2lemental Exhibit C: Assessed Value of Properties to be Annexed
The following changes apply to the Staff Report:
Page 1
• Sun Ridge Builders should be removed as an applicant and ownex.
• Under pxoposal, "Eleven (11) parcels" should be changed to "Eight (8) parcels."
Tota1 acreage should be changed from 40.93 acres to 35.78 acres. (At the hearing, I
estimated that the total revised acxeage was 34.82, but after re-surveying the site, it is
35.78.)
• Under location, the withdrawn parcels (Washington County Tax Map 2S108AB, Tax
Lots 1200 and 1201) should be deleted. In addition, Washington County Tax Map
2S1105DC, Tax Lot 100 should be deleted. These were included as a Yesult of a ta,x
map error.
• Under current zoning designation, the Counry designation R-15 should be added
because two of the City-owned properties are zoned R-15..
~ Under equivalent zoning designation, the City designation R-25 should be added
because that is the zone that most closely xefects the County R-15 designation.
Page 2
• Second paragraph from the bottom, the three sentences regarding the two
Brentwood parcels should be deleted.
Page 3
• Thisd paragraph from the bottom, maximum density of the privately-owned
property should be calculated based on a total of 3.03 acres instead of 9.14 acres.
Therefore, the estimated maximum residential units is approximately 21 and not 63,
not taking into account sensit'tve lands.
Page 4
• First paxagraph, concerning Public Works' comments on water, the sentence
regarcling the Brentwood parcels should be deleted.
• Last paragxaph, third sentence fxom top should be deleted because it xelates to the
Brentwood paxcels. Concernuzg roads that serve the proposed annexation territory
in the next sentence, "Roshak Road" should be deleted because it relates to the
Brentwood parcels.
Page 6
• First paragraph, second full sentence, the estimated density should be residentia121
units fox the privately-owned pxopexty and not 63 units.
• First paxagraph, last sentence states, "Based on comments fxom City of TigaYd staff,
there is adequate capacity to serve the annexation area (water, sewer, drainage,
streets, police, fire protection) if developed to the most intense use allowed, and it
will not significantly reduce the level of services available to developed and
undeveloped land within the City of Tigaxd." Ciry staff reviewed the proposal when
the estimated maximum density was 63 acres; therefore, because the maximum
density is now 21 residential units, the City's assessment of adequate capacity
overestimates the burden of the annexation on City services. In either case, whether
63 or 21 units, the City has adequate capacity to serve the proposed annexation
territory.
• Second paragraph from top states, "The City of Tigard department of Public Works
has reviewed. the annexation proposal and states that the City's water system can
provide the minimum State of Oxegon water service xequirements for the proposed
territory based on the maximum densiry perrnitted." The maxixnum density xeferred
to was 63 units; however, it is now 21.
Pa e 7
• In response "b," the privately owned acreage should be changed from 9.14 acxes to
3.03.
• Bottom paragraph should be deleted and replaced with "Upon approval and
execution of the proposed annexation, the territory will assume zon.ing to confortn
to the table below. In addition, the City's Comprehensive Plan designation will be
applied to this axea."
Page g
• Response to "C" should be deleted and replaced with "Six pa.YCels in the proposed
territory are currently zoned Washington County R-6 and two parcels are zoned
Washington County R-15. Upon annexation, the six parcels will automatically
become City of Tigard R-7 and the two parcels will become City of Tigaxd R-25."
Page 9
• Under the response to #2, "property owners of all 11 paxcels" should be changed to
"pYOperty owners of all 8 parcels."
Page 10
• The response to #5 states, "The public hearing will take place Septembex 26, 2006. If
the Council adopts findings to appxove ZCA2006-00002, the effective date of the
annexation will be October 26, 2006." However, the public hearing is being
continued on October 10, 2006. If the Council adopts the ordinance approving
ZCA2006-00002, the effective date of the annexation would be November 10, 2006.
Supplementai EXHIBIT A
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS 1N SUPPORT OF THE CACH CREEK AREA ANNEXATION
1. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 26, 2006, consistent
with ORS 222.120, to consider this annexation proposal. The City allowed written
comments concerning the proposed annexation to be submitted before, during and for a
period of seven days after the hearing. The Council also received oral comments at the
hearing.
2. The notice of the hearing proposed annexation of property owned by the City of Tigard,
the Tigard Water District, the Trust for Public Land, Brentwood Homes, and Jon Dyer.
The Trust for Public Lands and Brentwood Homes have indicated that they no longer
wish their property to be included in the proposed annexation. City staff has proposed
that the annexation include only those properties owned by the City of Tigard, the Tigazd
Water District, and Jon Dyer. The Council agrees that the annexation should be and is
limited to the properties owned by the City of Tigard, the Tigard Water District, and Jon
Dyer. The legal description and a map of the properties being annexed are included in
the ordinance as Exhibits A and B.
3. The City has written consents to annexation signed by a duly authorized official of the
City of Tigard and by Jon Dyer. It also has a petition for and consent to annexation
signed by a duly authorized official of the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) that
covers the property owned by the Tigard Water District. The IWB consent reflects a vote
by the IWB to petition for and consent to the annexation. The Council finds that the
Intergovernmental Water Board has authority to act for the Tigard Water District and
other members of the IWB as to the property proposed for annexation and properly
exercised that authority in signing the petition for and consent to annexation. The record
includes a letter from King City, a member of the IWB, expressly agreeing with the
consent to annexation, and written minutes of the IWB meeting showing the City of
Durham's vote in favor of the consent and statements in support of consent by Durham's
representative. The minutes show that the Tigard Water District representative abstained
from voting and did not oppose the action of the IWB in consenting to the annexation.
No one has claimed that the IWB lacked authority to act on behalf of the Tigard Water
District.
4. Under ORS 222.170(4), property that is publicly owned is not considered when
determining the number of owners, the area of land, or assessed valuation unless the
owner of the property files a statement consenting to or opposing a.nnexation.
Washington County has not submitted to the City a statement consenting to or opposing
the annexation, so County roads and rights-of-way that are within the area proposed for
annexation are not considered in determining whether the City has sufficient consents.
5. The City has the written consent of a11 of the owners of property proposed to be included
in the annexation. There are no registered voters in the area proposed for annexation.
The City therefore may proceed with annexation without a vote in the territory to be
annexed under ORS 222.125 (consent of all the owners and at least 50 percent of voters,
1
if any), ORS 222.170(1) (consent of half the owners of half the land with half the
assessed value, and ORS 222.170(2) (consent of a majority of the electors and owners of
half the property).
6. Even if the consent for the property owned by the Tigard Water District is not counted,
the City has sufficient consents to proceed with the annexation without an election in the
territory to be annexed under both ORS 222.170(1) and 222.170(2). The property owned
by the City of Tigard and Jon Dyer totals 21.04 acres, more than half of the total net azea
of 32.07 acres. The City and Mr. Dyer are two of three owners - more than half of the
owners. The total assessed value of the property owned by the City and Mr. Dyer is
$970, more than half of $970, which is the total assessed value of all the total net
property value in the area proposed for annexation. Because there are no resident voters
in the area, the number of voters does not need to be considered under ORS 222.170(2).
The City takes official notice of the assessed values for the properties as listed by
Washington County. The City notes that the market value for the Tigard Water District
property, as established by Washington County, is $1,316,700, which is less than half the
total market value of 3,582,850 of all the properties in the area to be annexed.
Findings Addressing Comments Received
7. The City received written comments from Karen and John Molloy, Lisa Hamilton-Treick,
Richard A. Franzke, Michael Orth, and Lawrence R. Derr in opposition to the opposed
annexation. The City also received inquiries from other property owners as to the
possibility of including their properties in the annexation. At the September 26, 2006,
hearing, Ms. Hamilton-Treick and Kinton Fowler testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation, and Linda Walsh offered testimony that could be considered critical of the
annexation.
8. On August 8, 2006, the Washington County Board of Commissioners called an election
on the proposed incorporation of the City of Bull Mountain. The area proposed for
annexation is within the area proposed to be included within the proposed City of Bull
Mountain. The City has concluded, on advice of its City Attorney, that it cannot process
petitions for annexation received after the time the proposed incorporation was referred to
the voters. Therefore, it is including in the proposed annexation only properties for
which it received a petition for and consent to annexation prior to August 8, 2006 and is
not adding any properties to the proposed annexation tenitory. The City received
petitions for annexation for all properties included in the proposed annexation prior to
August 8, 2006.
Findinjzs Relating To Comments Submitted by Lawrence R. Derr
9. Lawrence R. Derr submitted written comments on October 3, 2006, on behalf of Lisa
Hamilton-Treick. Mr. Derr argues that the City cannot proceed with the annexation
because the area proposed for annexation is within the area of the proposed City of Bull
Mountain. Mr. Derr argues that the "City has taken no actions to initiate this annexation
2
that are prior in time to the annexation procedures." The City concludes that the relevant
date for an incorporation proceeding is the date that the County acts to place the matter
on the ballot. Landis v. City of Roseburg, 243 Or 44, 411 P2d 282 (1966). The City
further concludes that the relevant date for annexations is the date that the petitions are
. filed with the City. ORS 222.111(2). This annexation was initiated no later than August
4, 2006, when the last of the petitions, that of Mr. Dyer, was received by the City.
August 4, 2006, was before August 8, 2006, when the County Board acted, so the City
may proceed with the annexation, not withstanding the actions to incorporate the City of
Bull Mountain.
10. Mr. Derr argues that the annexation is in violation of Metro Code Section 3.09.040(a)(1)
because the City lacks jurisdiction. The City has jurisdiction, based on the filing of the
petitions for annexation. Mr. Derr further argues that the City is in violation of Metro
Code Section 3.09.050(3)(5) because the annexation is not consistent with the orderly
provision of public facilities and services because it is in competition with the proposed
Bull Mountain incorporation. The annexation will provide for the orderly provision of
public facilities and services by allowing Tigard services to be provided in the area to be
annexed and would also provide for the orderly provision of parks and water services,
given that the properties owned by the City of Tigaxd and the Tigard Water District are
planned to be used for parks and water system purposes. Mr. Derr alleges that the
annexation would be contrary to Metro Code 3.09.050(d)(7) because the annexation
would be illegal. The annexation would not be illegal. The proposed annexation is
consistent with Metro Code 3.09.040(a)(1), 3.09.050(d)(5) and 3.09.050(d)(7).
11. Mr. Derr argues that the City failed to provide for "a public hearing necessary to avoid an
election under ORS 222.120(2)." The City Council held a public hearing on September
26, 2006, in compliance with the hearing requirement.
12. Mr. Derr argues that some or a11 of the petitions did not comply with the requirements of
Metro Code 3.09.040. Mr. Derr has not identified any way in which the petitions failed
to comply with Metro Code Section 3.09.040. Furthermore, Metro Code Section
3.09.040 is a section relating to submission requirements, and does not establish approval
criteria. The City, by processing the petitions, has accepted that they are sufficient to
allow the City to make a decision based on the applicable criteria.
13. Mr. Derr argues that Sunrise Lane is a county road and that the county has neither
petitioned for nor consented to the annexation. Under ORS 222.170(4), publicly owned
property may be annexed but does not count in the consideration of the sufficiency of the
consents unless the public owner consents or objects. The County has not consented or
objected, so the area is not counted in determining the sufficiency of the consents, even
though it is included in the annexation.
14. Mr. Derr further argues that the annexation is a cherry stem annexation and therefore not
justified. Even if this annexation could be considered a cherry stem annexation, cherry
stem annexations are not illegal. See Morsman v. City of Madras, 191 Or App 149, 81
3
P3d 711 (2003) and cases cited therein. Mr. Derr has not argued that the proposed
annexation is unreasonable or provided any factual basis such an argument. The
annexation is reasonable because it provides for an extension of the City boundaries so
that City pazks and water facilities will be within the City.
15. Mr. Derr states that the City must clarify the status of zoning and applicability of the Bull
Mountain Community Plan to the property proposed for annexation. The City's decision
does not change the zoning or make the Bull Mountain Community Plan inapplicable to
the areas being annexed.
Findings Related to Written Comments By Karen and John Molloy
16. Karen and John Molloy submitted a written comment on September 30, 2006, appazently
in opposition to the annexation because the property is within the area of the proposed
City of Bull Mountain. As discussed in the findings related to comments by Lawrence R.
Derr, the proposed incorporation of the City of Bull Mountain does not prevent the City
from proceeding with this annexation.
Findings Related to Written Comments bv Michael Orth
17. Michael Orth submitted a comment on August 13, 2006, opposing the annexation prior to
the vote on the incorporation of the City of Bull Mountain. As stated in the previous
findings, the City finds no legal impediment to proceeding with the annexation at this
time.
Findings Related to Written Comments Richard A. Franzke
18. Richard A. Franzke submitted written comments dated September 26, 2006. Mr. Franzke
argued that the incorporation proceedings were initiated before the City's annexation
proceedings. As discussed in Finding No. 9 above, the City has concluded that the City's
proceedings have priority.
19. Mr. Franzke argued that the City should respect the will of the citizens who will be
affected by its actions. The people who affected by an annexation are the property
owners and voters (if any) in the territory to be annexed. The City has the consent of all
property owners within the territory to be annexed and there are no voters in the territory
to be annexed. The City has been forced to turn aside property owners who want to
annex to the City because they are within the proposed City of Bull Mountain and did not
submit petitions prior to the date the County Board referred the incorporation to the
voters. Mr. Franzke suggests that the City's wish to annex these properties is based on
the desire to increase tax revenues. The vast majority of the property being annexed
(31.79 out of 34.82 gross acres) is publicly owned and not subject to property taxation.
Findings Related To Written Comments and Ora1 Testimonv of Lisa Hamilton-Treick
4
20. Ms. Hamilton-Treick submitted written comments on September 26, 2006. Ms. Hamilton
first argued that Washington County has not consented to the inclusion of the county
road. Publicly owned property may be included in an annexation and is not counted in
the calculation of consents unless the public owner specifically consents or objects. ORS
222.170(4). The County's lack of consent is relevant to whether the City counts the road
in the total property area, but does not otherwise affect the annexation.
21. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the proposed boundary creates islands and an irregulax
boundary. The Council finds that the boundaries of the City are sufficiently regular to be
consistent with Comprehensive Plan 10.1.2. The regularity standard in the
Comprehensive Plan standard is expressly related to whether police will be able to
respond in an emergency situation without difficulty. The City Council finds that the fact
that the vast majority of the property being annexed will be City owned and administered
means that there will be no difFiculties for the police in emergency situations. The only
"islands" created are three properties that will be outside Tigard City limits but will be
cut off from county, and possibly future City of Bull Mountain, areas only by Sunrise
Lane.
22. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the proposed boundaries will prevent four property
owners from being included in the proposed City of Bull Mountain. Any property that is
not included in the annexation but is included in the boundaries of the proposed City of
Bull Mountain will be included within the City of Bull Mountain if the voters improve
incorporation. As to the creation of islands, the City does not intend to use the island
annexation process to annex territory if the island is created only by a road or a narrow
strip of property.
23. Ms. Hamilton-Treick questioned the existing zoning designation of the property and the
continued application of the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The property is currently
zoned R-7 under the County's adoption of Tigard zoning. The annexation will not
change the zoning. The ordinance does not provide that the Bull Mountain Community
Plan will cease to be applicable to the property, so it will remain in effect as to the
property.
24. Ms. Hamilton-Treick asked when the City will provide notice to LCDC of any change in
zoning or plan provisions that affect the property. The City will provide notice if and
when the zoning or plan provisions are changed. The questions asked by Ms. Hamilton-
Treick do not provide any basis for denying the annexation petitions.
25. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the City's record on Goa15 resource protection is poor.
The City Council disagrees with her statement. However, nothing in her argument relates
to any applicable standard or criterion.
26. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the City Council did not set a date for the hearing and
that an election is therefore required. The statutory requirement is to hold a hearing, and
the City did hold a hearing. Ms. Hamilton-Treick appeared at the hearing. While ORS
5
222.120(2) does refer to the legislative body fixing the date for a hearing, the City
Council has delegated authority to set all agenda items, including hearings, to the City
Manager. City Council Groundrules, adopted by Resolution 04-83. The matter was set
for hearing by the City Manager, using the authority delegated by the Council.
27. Ms. Hamilton-Treick stated that a county commissioner stated that the property should be
in the proposed City of Bull Mountain. That statement does not relate to any applicable
approval standard or criterion. Ms. Hamilton-Treick further argues that the proposed
City of Bull Mountain and the City of Tigard must work together, presumably on
developing a portion of the City of Tigard property as a regional park. If the City of Bull
Mountain is formed, the Tigard City Council anticipates that Tigard and Bull Mountain
will work together and cooperate on a wide range of issues.
28. Ms. Hamilton-Treick asked that the record be kept open for seven days. The City
Council granted that request.
29. Ms. Hamilton-Treick argued that the City should put the annexation on hold pending the
vote on incorporation. The City can proceed with this annexation because the petitions
were received before the incorporation was referred to the voters.
30. Ms. Hamilton-Treick submitted a letter from a deputy legislative counsel to
Representative Jerry Krummel. That letter expressly states that the sole purpose of the
letter is to assist members of the legislature and that it is not to be considered or used as
legal advice by any other person. The City will not consider the letter or use it as legal
advice.
31. Much of Ms. Hamilton-Treick's oral testimony was the same as her written comments.
None of the additional statements in her oral testimony addressed any applicable standard
or criterion.
Findings Related to Oral Testimony of Kinton Fowler
32. Kinton Fowler testified at the Septemer 26, 2006, hearing. He suggested that the City
hold off on the annexation until after the November 7 election to avoid a legal dispute
and to get the relationship between the City of Tigard and the proposed City of Bull
Mountain off to a good start. Mr. Fowler did not argue that the City was legally
precluded from going ahead with the annexation.
Findinas Related to Oral Testimony of Linda Ro e~rs
33. Ms. Rogers questioned the suitability of the property for a park. The proposed park
would be a nature park rather than a park with developed athletic fields. Her testimony
did not raise any issue relevant to any applicable standard or criterion.
6
-
Suppiemental EXHIBIT g
kj,j~ ~W n,
~ . ~
r- ~~'C~`..~~
- ..•"P
SeP~
~ Pageratgdw, qsso&ft PiBrtfw
FisrWng CC~itY '~9~~
~1
13~, R .
Req~sst fat aanexat'°n mia t~ CitY af T~gssd .
Dw GgLry' uir~n~nts far mY Woposed pr°il
s ro9~'0the daveloprt~aIt ~ 3) ~W ~et 1 must
pue to a EstaWs ~~le ~ S~~~ to be srme~oed. bY ~ .
~ my 6quest to be inctud~d ~
CitY af Tigerd' .
Thar* You for Your at*Mon to t4~ec mattor•
Re9ards.
John ; e~ Hmws
p'22 06 06:04p Rep Jerry Krummel 5035702865 p.2
aNa soss
900COUATSi'N651ot
~Eas+ATiVEOOUas' `r . saLEMa+c:so,..ocs
Fnx fSOM 3734ws
STATE OF 4REGON
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL COMMITTEE
September 20, 2006
Representative Jerry Krummel
75" SW Roanoke Drive N ,';_V
L P%
f..i:~,
Wilsonville OR 87070
Re: Annexation and lncorparation Priorifiy
. Dear Represertitative tfrummei:
You asked about the legalifjr af proceedings to annex terrdory thai are initlated after
proceedings to iricorporate a new city have commenced. The situaUon tnvolves a petitioc► to
incorporate the Proposed new City of Bull Mountafn and a subsequent petition af the Cify of
Tigard to annex ait or part of the same territory.
H the proceedings oi both mvnicipalities are law(vity undertaken, the proceedings of both
municipa(ities may be maintained and none of the proceedings are void ab init►a, or void from
the very inceptlon of the act.' However, when "two municipai bodies are lawfuliy and fu{ly
. organized, it is ctear that both cannot exist fvr the same purpose and exercise the sarne
authority over the same territory."` The only basis for the courts ta intervene tn the otherwise
lawful proceedings of either municipa{ity is iv "prevent the abuses that woutd arise when iwo
governmenta► powers are attempting to exercise autt`writy over the same territory."' Under those
circumstances and modeled on the eourt's anatysis vf the prioriry of couns that share concurtent
jurisdiction, the Oregon Supreme Court concfuded that the first municipality to exercise
jurlsdiciton obtains priority to comptete its proceedings and that the second munficipality "as a
matter of policy' may not Interfere with the first municipality's proceedings whffe those
proceedings are pending 4 To that end, while botfe praceedings are pending, the Nrst
rrtunicipaiity may seek and be entitled to have the second muniCipardy enjomed, or ousted +'n .
quo warranto proceedings, while the first municipality's proceedinqs are pending 5
• Because the governing body of Washington County approved the petidon to incarporate
fhe Ciry of Bull Moucnain and set an etection date, appropriate parties who favar incorporation
woutd appear to be entiUed to temporary in)unctiv2 relief to delay the City of Tigard's
praceedings to annex the same teRitory. The InJunctIon might propetly be macie permanent if
the electors approve ;ncorporation at tt►e soheduled efectlen. In the absence of injunctive relief,
both proceedings may continue, and, ff the efectors reject ➢ncorporation, the Cityr of Tigard's
annexation proceedings taKe effect if completed in accordance witfii the legal requirements ior
annexation.
' Landls v. City of Roseburg, 243 Or. 44 n 986) (c.itetion3 oadri4.
Z !d at 48.
9 !d &t 52.
` !d at 50.
s/dat51,
k;b{atW7U0268 bhc.doo ,
22 06 06:04p Rep Jerry Krummel 5035702865 p.l
~V a/ c.r.i tvvv • ao nu
RepresentaUve Jerry Knimmei
September20. 20D8
Page 2
The opinioris v+nitten by the Legis[atlve CoUnsei and the staff o# the l.egisiaNve CounsePs
offtce are prepared solely fvr the purpose of assisting members of the Legislative Assembiy In
the development and conaiderttion of tegislative matters. !n perfarming their dWes, the
Legisfative Counsel and the members of the sta#f of ihe Legislatlve Counsel'& nffice h8ve no
authority to provide Iegal advice to any oiher person, group or ent;ty. For this reason, this
eptnton should not be considered or used as tegai advice by any pmon other than legislators in
ihe canduct of legislatnre business. PvbtiC bodies and Uteir affioers and employees should seek
and rely ugon the advice and opinion of the Attomey General, district attorney, county counsel,
city attomey or other reiained counset. Const'ituents and ofher private persons and entrties
shouki seek and rely upon the advice and opinbn of pcivate counsel.
Slncerety. '
ANN 805$
legislative Counse!
-%44-
ay
B. Harrison Conley
Deputy Legislat(ve Counsel
MaprA67U0268 bho.doc
r
LO
Lisa Hamilton-Treick
13546 SW Beef Bend Rd.
Tigard, OR 97224
~.;z
~~V,g ;
September 26, 2006 Mayor Dirksen and Councilors I,-.,.,...,
13125 SW HallBlvd. p±_,r.~~;; .
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: 41 Acre Cach Creek An.nexation ,
Dear Mayor Dirksen and Members of the Council:
As a resident of unincorporated BuII Mountain and as a Co-Chief Petitioner
for the proposed City of Bull Mountain I object to this annexation and
Tigard's attempt to remove territory from the proposed city boundary.
Significant steps have been taken (and accepted by Washington County) by
members of the community, over several months, in an effort to place
incorporation before the voters on November 7, 2006.
1) The Economic Feasibility Statement was submitted to Washi.ngton
County on May 25, 2006, along with other required documents necessary to
begin the incorporation process.
2) On May 30, 2006, 776 petition signatures were submitted to Washington
County. The required 10% of the registered voter's sigaatures, from within
the proposed boundary, were verified.
3) June 8, 2006 Washington County Board of Commissioners voted to move
forward with public hearings on the incorporation proposal.
4) Three public hearings were held; on August 8, 2006 Washington Counry
Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to place incorporation before
the voters within the proposed boundary.
I raise the following questions and issues regarding this proposed annexation:
1) There is a lack of consent or petition from Washington County for
inclusion of the county road.
2) The proposed boundary creates islands and an irregular boundary
which is contrary to Tigard's Comp Plan 10.1.2 which provides that
approval shall be based on findings with respect to the following: a)
the annexation eliminates an existing pocket or island of
unincorporated tenitory, or b) the annexation will not create an
irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an
emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or
outside the City.
Tigard's plan creates islands and prevents four property owners from
being included in the new city boundary. Where does this leave their
vote on November 7, 2006 election only six weeks from now? One
large property owner has recently withdrawn his consent to annex.
This again alters the boundary.
3) The report and the proposed ordinance state that the property is
presently zoned county R-6 and will be changed to a comparable city
R-7 with the annexation by operatioa of the TDC 18.320.020. I ask
that staff clarify why the designation is not R-7 now under County
Ordinance 487?
4) Historically, Tigard has ignored the Bull Mountain Community Plan,
or has offered annexation as a means to avoid compliance with the
BMCP. What is the city's position on the Bull Mountain Community
Plan as it relates to this annexation? Why doesn't it apply now under
the county ordinance? 5) If the zoning and pla.n provisions change from county to city then a 45
day advance notice to LCDC is required under ORS 197.610. When
will the city provide such notice?
6) Tigard's track record on Goa15 resowce protection is very poor. The
areas proposed for annexation to Tigard are acknowledged by Tigard
to have Goa15 resources. Under Tigard's jurisdiction the level of
protection will certainly decrease and will potentially cause
irreparable harm to the land by compromising the natural resources
and impacting neighboring properties and property owners.
7) Per ORS 222.120(2), if Council chooses not to submit annexation to a
vote of the electors of the city, it shall set a date to hold a hearing
where the electors may appear. Since the Council has taken no action
with respect to this proposal, including not setting a date and ordering
the hearing, this hearing does not dispense with the requirement for an
election.
8) There are competing and unresolved jurisdictional issues which must
be settle through Washington County Circuit Court or through the
La.nd Use Board of Appeals, should Tigard choose to move forward
with this annexation.
9) Washington County Commissioner Dick Schouten wisely stated
during the incorporation hearings, that the best way to provide for
parks in the Bull Mountain area is to keep the Cach Creek nature area,
Tigard's property, and the Tigard Water District property in the new
city boundary, where the combined acreage may be large enough to
qualify as a regional park. The area could be best served if the new
City of Bull Mountain and Tigard must work together to provide the
land, improvements and maintenance dollars.
10 Since this is a quasi judicial hear, I request under ORS 197.763, that
the record remain open for a minimum of seven days to allow
introduction of additional evidence, arguments or testi.mony.
I request the Tigard City Council place this annexation on hold until after
the November election. The incorporation proceeding was initiated prior
to the annexation proceeding. Washington County has prior jurisdiction
and Tigard cannot proceed until after the election and then only if the city
is not approved.
~
Sincer ly, ~
,
*Lisa ilton-Treick
i
0f o4,6'
September 26, 2006 ~ CEL E I V E D
Caty of Tn~ard
r
c. . i
P~abldc ~$eaa'iaag .a
TeS$9fl~'itOYfly ~f Rflchard A. Franzke T Y Oa- `r. K~;Nf=:D
P!.r"•kP•i:~1;iNiR~f!i~~~~C.::'!`,~
Re: Propo~~~ annexataon of 41 acres mn Bull Mougntai~
I reside at 14980 SW 1133rd Avenue
Bull I~ountain, Oregon 97224
I te5tify $hi3 evefidIlng $O rem0ns$rate agagnSt the
Cflty of"Tigard's actions in annexation of 41 acres of land
located within ghe boun~ar~~~ proposed new Cit~ of
Bull MoungaIlne
The partges s~~~ ~gree d.hat 66firS$ gn tlm~ firSt lln
rIlght"e ORS 231o031(~) provfl~~~ that before cflrcu9ating .
a petition tO flnC0rpOrate a new cflty, the petitioa~ers shall
f 9e ~~th the county clerk a petition for incorporatIlOne The
statute prmvfldes that the clerk sha0l date and time sgamp
the petition and shadl immedflately send two copies to the
county commissgono
I b~~~eve that the date and time stamping of the incorporation
petition marks the beginning of the incorporation process.
These actions were taken before the city commenced it's
effort to annex the subject property. Accordingly, I
believe the residents of Bull Mountain will ultimately prevail
in the litigation.
The litigation, however, is NOT what I want to address this
evening. What I want to address is the "wrongness" of the city's
action - it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Has this council no sense
of decency? Has it no respect for the will of the citizens who
would be affected by it's actions? Must the lust for more tax
revenue trump basic fairness?
I urge the council to do the RIGHT thing: stop the
annexation effort immediately and abide the outcome of
the incorporation vote on November 7th.
;Thank you
ichar ranzke
CONFIItMATION OF CONSENT TO ANNEXATION
On July 24, 2006, the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) signed petitions and consents to
annexation to the City of Tigard for properties then shown on Washington County tax maps as:
2S l 05DB00400
2S 1 OSDB06100
2S l O5DB06200
52105DC00100
2S105DC00200
2S105DC00300
2S105DB00400 The City received those petitions and consents no later than August 1, 2006. The IWB petition
and consent was on behalf of the IWB and its members. The IWB was actirig for the City of
Tigard in submitting the petitions and consents,
On August 7, 2006, the City published notice of a hearing on an annexation that included the
above-referenced properties. That notice listed the City as the applicant and stated that the
applicant is seeking annexation of property into the City of Tigard, including the above-listed
properties. The notice also served as a written consent of the City to the proposed annexation.
With the recording of certain property transactions, some of the tax lots listed above have been
consolidated or reconfigured. The City is currently listed as the owner on title to the following
properties, all of which are included in the properties listed above:
2S l O5DB06100
2S l O5DB06200
2S l O5DC00300
2S l O5DB00400
The City was also the title owner to these properties at the time that IWB signed and submitted
the petitions/consents to annexation.
The City confirms that IWB had authority to consent to the annexations for all interests of the
City of Tigard in any and all of the properties. The City hereby restates that it consents to the
annexation as to all property that it holds title to and as to any other interest in any of the
properties.
Dated this 26I" Day ptember 2006
CITY F T GARD
Aae ~l -lv~
z"S
~ Carol,
f•. i.y..,
Please enter the attached documents into the Cach Creek Annexation Recsord::;r."tt,,,`,
. . . , ~
1. July 20, 2006, Intergovemrnental Water Board Agenda
2. July 20, 2006, Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes
3. July 19, 2006, Letter from King City Mayor Faes to the Intergovernmental Water
Board Chairperson, Bill Scheiderich, recommending the IWB execute annexation
4. Revised July 19, 2006, Letter from King City Mayor Faes to the
Intergovernmental Water Board Chairperson, Bill Scheiderich, recommending the
IWB consent to annexation
If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks!
Greer x 2595
Intergovernmental Vllater Board
Special Meeting
Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area
a •o.§ ~ Rii ti rd y~ '~x ~ `Y,ti,~, .~Iv~ fih~ ~rF r~ yh,~x Kry j'5. c.Si . . ~ 7 ~ypas~ _ ~di\~',&'r~h`~X' gs''yty~iY,~»y5~ ~l~t .~A~E.ND ~ t' at ci+~r2'~'i'2.k t'~'v.a #~St'a 'x~ i ,h
When: Where:
Thursday, Juty 20, 2006 Tigard Water Buiiding
5 P.M. 8777 SW Burnham Street
Tigard, OR 97223
1. Call fo Order, Roll Call and Introductions
Cai( the meeting to order, staff to take roii call. _
2. Annexation af the Clute, Menlor Reservoir and Cach Properties into the City
of Tigard - Brian Rager
Consider a motion to annex the Clute, Menlor Reservoir and Cach properties into
the City of Tigard and to authorize the IWB Chair to execute an annexation
request on behalf of the Board.
3. Next Meeting - August 9, 2006, 5:30 p.m. - Water Auditorium
4. Adjournmenf
Motion for adjournment.
Executive Session: The lntergovernmenta! Water Board may go into Execufive Session. If an
Executive Session is cal/ed to order, the appropriate ORS citafion wil/ be announced
identifying fhe applicable sfatute. AIl discussrons are confrdential and those present may
disc/ose nothing from fhe Sessron. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend
Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 992. 660(4), but must not disclose any information
discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any fina/ action or
makrng any final decision. Execufive Sessions are closed fo the public.
~ ' .
;
;
;
Intergovernrnenta! Vllater Board
; Speciai AAeeting Minutes
July 20, 2006
' Tigard V1later Building
8777 SW Burnham Streefi
Tigard, Oregon
i Members Presenf: Patrick Carroll (arrived 5:04 p.m.), Beverly Froude, Bill
Scheiderich, Dick Winn and Sydney Sherwood (afternate for
: Tom Woodruf)
~
Members Absent: Tom Woodruff
Staff Present: Assistant Public Works Director Brian Rager
Water Quality & Supply Supervisor John Goodrich
IWB Recorder Greer Gaston
i
1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introducfions
The meeting was called to order at 5:01 p.m.
! 2. Annexafion of the Clute, Menlor Resenroir and Cach Proper-ties into the Cify
of Tigard
Commissioner Scheiderich stated the Board was considering a consent to annexation
and added the Board was not taking public comment at this meeting. He noted the
~ Board had heard public comments on this issue at its July 12, 2006, meeting and he
had acted on those comments.
i Commissioner Scheiderich addressed the following issues:
, Consent to Annexation/Public Process
' Commissioner Scheiderich emphasized the Board was not annexing the properties in
' question. He announced he had spoken with Washington County Counsel and
~ confirmed the issue under consideration was whether the Board wanted to consent to
annexation. This does not mean the properties will be annexed. He noted the actual
annexation process would be a land use matter handled through the City of Tigard and
this process would require a public hearing. The annexation decision could be
appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals.
~ Ownership
° Commissioner Scheiderich emphasized any action taken by the Board would not affect
' the ownership of property.
~ Intergovernmental Water Board July 20, 2006
i 1
;
t ,
;
'Note: Commissioner Carroll arrived at 5:04 p.m.
~
; Shared Ownership
Commissioner Scheiderich commented the City of Tigard has deemed the members of
the Board as having an ownership interest in the properties. He added the City, as the
~ managing agency, could have bypassed this process and asserted it had sufficient
; ownership to initiate the annexation on its own. In asking the TWD and two other cities
; to go through this process, the City was aHowing for more consideration than required.
:
~ Urgency
; Commissioner Scheiderich stated the City of Tigard's position was that water assets,
like the reservoir, are very important and the possibili#y of turning these assets over to ~ another city is too much of an unknown. The Bull Mountain petition of incorporation
! compelled Tigard to decide whether to leave the water properties in the unincorporated
~ area, where they may end up within the boundaries of a new city, or to annex them
now.
~
' lmpact of Boundary Changes
; Commissioner Scheiderich stated the point of the upcoming Bull Mountain
incorporation public hearings is solicit input, regarding boundaries and other issues,
~ from cities or other entities that may be affected by the incorporation. Commissioner
Scheiderich reported, according to County Counsel, changing the boundaries would
~ not affect the feasibility study. The purpose of the hearings is to decide what the
~
~ boundaries should be and redrawing the boundaries would not put a stop to
' incorporation.
~ Attempt to Disrupt Incorporation Commissioner Scheiderich said he did not believe the annexation was an attempt to
~ undermine incorporation. He added he would have serious reservations about
supporting the consent to annex if he believed this to be the case.
Tax Revenue
' Commissioner Scheiderich stated annexation of the properties would not affect the tax
revenue of the new city, since properties owned by the City and the TWD are not
taxable.
Parks
~ Commissioner Scheiderich explained Metro had allocated money to purchase some of
; the property, and although this was pubiic money, Tigard determined how and where
the money was spent. He doubted Tigard would single out non-city residents when it
came to using the park and added any parks created from the annexed parcels would
be regional assets.
Motion and Positions
Commissioner Scheiderich asked for a motion giving the 6oard's consent to
annexation of the CIu4e, Menlor Reservoir, and Cach properties to the City of Tigard
~ Intergovernmental Water Board July 20, 2006
2
ii
I
i
i
and authorizing the Chair to sign the consent to annexation. Commissioner Carroll so
, moved and Commissioner Sherwood seconded the motion.
; Comrnissioner Scheiderich asked the Commissioners to state their position.
Commissioner Carroll reported in order to protect water assets, the City of Durham
; recommended the annexation of the Menlor Reservoir, Clute property and Cach
properties into the Cit.y of Tigard.
Commissioner Winn, as the King City representative, reported he had been directed to
; recommend approval of consent to annexation. He stated his initial objection was the
' IWB should not be in the business of annexing properties and the Board should not be
± used by the City of Tigard for this purpose. Commissioner Winn concluded that given
Commissioner Scheiderich's assessment of the property situation, the consent to
annex made sense.
z
Note: On 7-26-06 King City submitted a revised leiter dated 7-99-06 changing the
' wording of their previous memo from "The City Council of King City recommends that
the !WB execute annexation to "The City Council of King City recommends that
' the IWB consent to annexation ..."A copy of the revised letter is on file in the IWB
record.
Commissioner Sherwood, representing the City of Tigard, explained Tigard needed to
protect and continue taking care of the water district property within Tigard city limits,
as opposed to having the property reside within some other city.
Commissioner Froude stated she would abstain from the vote. She represents the
TWD and the District had not made a recommendation.
~
! The motion was approved by a majority vote of 4-0-1, with four yes votes and one
; abstention by Commissioner Froude.
;
Note: ifem # 3, IVext Meeting - August 9, 2006, 5:30 p.m. - Water Auditorium, was not
discussed.
;
4. Adjournmenf: The meeting was adjoumed at 5:12 p.m. .
;
~ Greer A. Gaston, IWB Recorder
Date: t7U T 9 ~~~o
;
;
Intergovemmental Water Board July 20, 2006
i
3
;
i
f
~ KING CITY
~
` 16500 SW. ilSth Avenue, King City, Oregon 972TA•2G93
Phone: (fiD~) G34qpd2 • FAX (509) fi59•3771
i
i .
~ 7/19/2006
i
i .
} A,riy. Biil Scheiderich, Chairman
; Intergovernmental Wuter Board
; City of Tigerd
13125 SW Ha(1 Bl.vd.
~ Tigard, Oregon 97224
i
Dear Chairman Scheiderich:
.
The City Councit af King City recommends that the IWB execute annexation of the
+ Menlor Reservoir Site, Clute property and Cac6 properties into the City of Tigard.
Sinc 71r,
~
harles R Faes
~ Mayor
~
;
~
i
;
~
~ .
i
'
~
KING CITY
168003W.116th Avenne, KinR City, Ornytoa 97224-2599
~ Phone: (603) 639•4082 • FAX (603) 639-3771
7/ 19/2006
K.pC~i✓tG~
~ 07-26-06PG4:23
~
! Atty. Bill Scheidetich, Cltairman
~ Intergovernmetttal VVatea Board
City of Tigsrd
y 13125 SW Hsll Blvd.
f T;gud, Oregon 97224
i Dear Chairmxn Scheiderich: The City Cow+cil of King City reoommends thwt the MB consent t° annexation of the
~ iyenlor iteservoir Site, Clute p~operty and Cacfi properties into the City-of ~gard.
i,
i Since~ely;
~ Charles R. Faes
; `yor
;
;
i
I
~
` l~a~•: On 7•2G -D~ krnt C~fr~
,
' fa.xed ~his revis[d L&i~'
i
` /btB
;
~ exeuc~ aA nexal-
i
(
,
I '
t •
;
~
f
i
i
~.1
5035219135
5ep 30 06 11:31a Jahn S. Mollatl
1t / C l~' ✓""t ~ 3 E. y ia..s
~611n
~ ~ ~
~ §63
e `,,.s~
eAvLOd ~ . ~
S/11~1/I c~"`--S ~
Ac
~
~
~
~
1+
,I
It
I
1
i,
`
t
+ 10/03/2006 TUE 14:55 FAX iR6800 Z001/003
I
r .
~
1
i
~
I
LAW OI'FICES OF
t,.
, JOSSELSON, POTTER & ROBERTS `«',(r,;r
•o~.3jr_nL.
~ 425 NW .kOTH AVENUE, SUITE 306
PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 ~
;
! Telephonc: (503) 228-1455
; r<icsimile; (503) 228-0171
~ FAX COVER SHEET
; FAX NUMBER:
~ DATE:
r
TIME
; NO. PAGES: 3(including covcr shect)
~
;
To: E,naiy Bib
; FROM: Larry Derr
i
~
' MESSAGE
;
Please inetude the attaehec! ]etter itt the reeord Eor the Caeh Creek anilexation. Thanlc you.
;
;
~
;
i
This fax is also being sent by regular mail. X This is only being sent by fax.
' The informltion contained in this fnx is cunt'idential and is iutended only Por Elie use of
the intlividunl or entity to whom it is s►ddressed. Il ms►y contnin inFnrmntion pa•otectecl by tlae
i nttorney-clicnt privilege.
If you do not rcccivc atl plges, plcasc cnll (503) 228•1455 aud ask (or Tarri or Lindz.
i
i
I
j
i
~
~
~ i 10/03/2006 TIiE 14:58 FAX iR6800 1?1002/003
i
~
i
~
i
L,aw O(fices of
1 JOSSEISON, POITER & RObERTS
iNe GRe4oay • 5uire 306
425 MV lOTk AvE~ur.
PoarUwd, Oaeqon 97209
~ Ictepkome; (503) 228•14i5
i
i BY FAX 503-598-1960
~ Tigard City Couiacil
;
~ Attn: $mily F;ng
~
` Tigarcl City Hall
13125 SW Hall Boulevard ' Tigard, OR 97223
i
i lte: Proposed Cach Creek Annexation
r
1
Mayor Dirksen and Members of the Council:
; I represent Lisa Hamilton-Treick in cannection with the abovc: described
annexation proposat. My client opposes the annexation. This letter supplements material
i. provided to the Council by Ms. Hamilton-Ti•ieek and other opponents, all of which raisc
= issues that inust be addressed by the Council before it attempts to annex this pc•operty.
i
1 The threshold .issue is whetiier the City cari proceed at all until the result of the
j incorporatioii election for the Cify of Bull Mauntain is known. The incorporation
proceeding was initiated with the filing of valid signed petitions and a map of the
? proposed annc;xation territory with Washington County on May 30, 2006. On June 6,
' 2006 the Board of County Commissioners set hearing dates for July 25, August 1 and
~ August 8, 2006 and o2•dered the giving of notice of the lzearings. On August 8 the Board
; adopted an order to plACC the incorporation on the Novetnber 7, 2006 ballot. Notice of
~ the action pursuant to Metro Code was subsequently given. No appeais were filed to
LUBA or under Metra procedures within the prescribed times.
4
; The territory of the proposed annexation is entirely witliin the arca originally
i proposed for iiicorporation by the petition xnap aad the area included in the Board order.
~ The City has taken no actions to initiate this aiunexation tllat are prior in time to the
~ iucorporation procedures. The City doc;s not have authority to proceed with the
i annexation unlcss and until the incorporation vote fails to favor the incozpoz•ation.
s Proceeding in the interim is also in violation of Metro Code secfions 3.09.040(a)(I)
' bccause the City does not have jurisdictiori to procecd, 3.09,050(d)(5) because doiilg so
; in the face of a coinpeting and prior annexation proceeding is not consistent with the
; orderly provision of public facilities and services, and 3.09.050(d)(7) because of the
violafion of state taw in doing so.
~
{
,
i
i
~
i
i LAWRENCk R. UC•RR
~ FncslhiiLC: (503) 228-0171 OF COUNSEI. (-MAII: )PR@jPRL1W.COM
}
1
i
lb/03/2006 TUE 14:56 FAX iR6800 ID003/003
I
JOSSELSON, PUTTER 8e RObERT5
Tigard City Council
Attn: Emily Eng
Page 2 - Continued
~
Moreover, it does not appear from this record that the Coutlcil, the legislative
~ body of the City, provided for a public hearing necessary to avoid an election under ORS
222.120(2), or that apetition for annexation was submitted that complies with the
; requirements of Metro Code 3.09.040. Suru•ise Lane is dedicated Counly Road. The annexatioil proposal does not
include a petition or consen;t to anuexation from Washington County for the extended
length of Suxu-ise Lane included in the annexation oz accouut for the property as property
; included without consent. The adjacent property that was inclu<ied in the Sunrise Lane
' annexation is not, or wathin few days will not be, in the City as a result of the remand of
that action by LUBA. The Court o£ Appeals appeai from LUBA's decision lias Ucen
dismissed and LUBA either has or shortly will reissue its remand order. With the Sunrise
Lane annexation area excluded from fhe City, the proposed aruiexation becomcs one that
' relies on a long "cherry stem" approach that cannot be justified.
;
• Tlte City must clai•ify what the current status of zoning and the Bull Mountain
Commu.nity Plan are for the property and what chanbes, if any wiil be made by this
annexation action. If annexation changes the zone and/or removes the Bul( Mountain
Community Plan, notice xnust have beeu given to LCDC under state statute. .In the case
of the removal of the Bull Mountain Community Plan, the City must explain how the
actioii will camply with Goal 5 foz• the identified natural resources, including trees, on the
property.
;
~ Very ti•uly yoUrs,
awi • nce R. Derr
i
~
;
;
~
~
i
Supplemental EXHIBIT C
Cach Creek Area Annexation - Assessed Value of Properties to be Annexed
Tax Ma Property Owner Acres Assessed Value Market Value
2S105D606100 City of Ti~ard. _ 1_ 36 0 ---424 810
~
2S105D606200 CityofTi~ard _ ._0_37 _ _ _ 0 _ _ 104340
S105DB00400 Tisard Water District. 11.03 01,316,700
-
2S105DC00201. Cit~ of Ti~ard__ 12.15 ___________0 1:157,500 ~
-
2S105DD00300 Dyer .......................2..................... 820* 980
Dyer _ _ __0.47 ___150' _ _ _ 180
2S105DC00300 CityofTi~ard_ _ _ __3_20 ________0 _ _ 130
2S105DC00400 Ci of Ti ard 0.93 0 578,210
*Forest Deferral
. '
TO THE .COUNCII.OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON: On behalf of the Tigard Interg overnmental Water Board and to the extent of the Board members' property interest in the~~ properties described
below as Board C~iairman I~iereby petition for, and give consent to, Annexation of said property to tf~e City of Tigard, We understand that
the City will review this request in accordance with ORS Chapter 222 and appiicabie regional and local policies prior to approving or denying
the request for Annexation.
LEGENQ:
PO - Property Owner
RV - Registered Voter . PAGE OF ~
OV - Pro ert Owner & Registered Voter I AM A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME PO RV OV ADDRESS Townshlp/ Map Tax Lot Precinct DATE. .
Section Numbec Number Number
u9444AM Sc EivfAc K , t SS sw X'te'VVAP c,r 4722 2S-1W5 DB 400 •Z
6200
6100
2S-1 W5 DC 100
200
300.
4:00
. m
~
00
~
l~
. ~
1:lcurplnlmasters\revfsedlanxpetn.mst 15-Aug-02
TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON: On behalf of the Tigard Interg overnmental Water Board and to the extent of the Board members' property interest in the properties described.
below; as Board CFiairman I hereby petition for, and. give consent to, Annexation of said property to the City of Tigard. We understand that
the City will review this request in accordance with OFZS Chapter 222 and applicable regional and local policies prior to approving or denying
the request for Annexation.
LEGEND;
P.0 - Property Owner RU - Registered Voter PAGE 2• OF ~
OV - Pro ert Owner & Re istered Voter
I AM A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.
SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME P0 RV OV ADDRESS Township/ Map Tax Lot Precinct DATE
Section Number . Number Number
2S-1 W5 DB 400
6200 •O
• Ft l3 Sw 3Mver•t c.t' QT
22 3
6100
2S-1 W5 DC . 100
200
300
400
1:lcurplnlmasterslrevisedlanxpetn.mst 15-Aug-02
TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD; OREGON:
On behalf of the-Tigard Interg overnmental Water Board and to the extent of the Boar.d members' property interest in the~~ properties described
below, as Board C~iairman I hereby petition for, and give consent to, Annexation of said property to the City of Tigard. We understand that
-the City will review this request in accordance with ORS Chapter.222 and applicable regional and local policies prior to approving or denying
the request for Annexation. . ~
LEGEND: PO - Property Owner RV - Registered Voter PAGE 3 OF .
OV - Pro ertOwner & Re istered Voter
I AM A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME PO RV OV ADDRESS Township/ Map Tax Lot Precinct DATE
Section Number Number Number
2S-1 W5 DB 400
6200
. cKcre bsu 3 SS sw S-zeuvicr 9122? 6100 ~Mi0
2S-1 W5 DC 100
. 200
300 "
400
• I:\curpln\masters\revised\anxpetn.mst 15-Aug-02
I
TO THE COUNCIL OF. THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON: On behalf of the Tigard Interg overnmental Water Board and to the extent of the Board members' property interest in the properties described .
below, as Board Cfiairman I hereby petition for, and give consent to, Annexation of said property to the City of Tigard. We understand that
the City will review this request in accordance with ORS Chapter 222 and applicable regional and local policies prior to approving or denying
the request for Annexation.
LEGEND:
P0 - Property Owner
RV - Registered Voter PAGE ~ OF f-4"
OV - Pro ect Owner & Re istered Voter
( AM A . PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
SIGNATURE. PRINTED NAME PO RV OV ADDRESS Townshfp/ Map Tax Lot Precincf DATE _
Section Number Number Number
2S-1 W5 DB 400
6200
61.00
Sct(F c t~G''/11c t~ l 3 SS S'w 3.T-- veN cr cfZtz 2.S-1 W5 DC 100 ?S o
200
300
400
i:\curpln\masters\revlsed\anxpetn.mst 15-Aug-02
TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON:
On behalf of the Tigard Interg overnmental Water Board and to the extent of the Board members' property interest in the~~ properties described
below as 6oard Cl~airman I ~iereby petition tor, and give consent to, Annexation of said property to tf~e City of Tigard. We understand that the City will review this request in accordance with ORS Chapter 222 and applicable regional and local policies prior to approving or denying
the request for Annexation, .
LEGEND:
PO - Property Owner
• RV - Registered Voter PAGE OF a-l
OV - Proert Owner & Re istered Voter
. I'AM A PROPERTY DESCRIPT(ON
SIGNATURE PRINTEp NAME PO RV OV ADDRESS Townshipl Map Tax Lot Precincf DATE
Section Number Number Number
2S-1 W5 DB 400
6200
6100
2S-1 W5 DC 100
. c~.~M sc~i ~R~ crt SS S ~u stt'~!~c:t' 1?223 200 ,~~{•a
300
400 i:\curplnlmasters\revised\anxpetn.mst 15-Aug-02
. l0
TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON: -
On behalf of the Tig ard Interg overnmental Water Board and to the extent of the Board members' property interest in the~~ properties described
below as Board Chairman I Tiereby petition for, and give consent to, Annexation of said property to the City of Tigard. We understand that
the City will review this request in accordance with ORS Chapter 222 and applicable regional and local policies prior to approving or denying
the request for Annexation.
LEGEND:
PO . Property Owner
RV - Registered Voter PAGE OF ~
OV --Pro eit Owner & Re istered Voter
I AM A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
[:SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME PO RV OV ADDRESS Townshlp/ Map Tax lot Precinct DATE
Section Number Number Number
2S-1 W5 DB 400
6200 .
6100
2S-1 W5 DC 100
200
SettCroCAAe + afass sw Sm e.r 4 300 ?-zY•o
400 .
i:\curplnlmasters\revlsed\anxpetn.mst 15-Aug-02
TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON: .
On behalf of the Rairman ard Intergovernmental Water Board and to the extent of the Board members' property interest in the~~ properties described
below, as Board I~iereby petition for, and give consent to, Annexation of said property to the City of Tigard. We understand that
the City will review this request in accordance with ORS Chapter 222 and applicable regianal and local policies prior to approving or denying
the request for Annexation.
LEGEND:
PO - Property Owner
RV - Registered Voter PAGE !:~OF 7"
OV - Property Owner & Re istered Voter
I AM A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME PO RV OV ADDRESS Township/ Map Tax l.ot Precinct DATE
' Section Number Number Number
2S-1 W5 DB 400
6200
6100
ZS-1 W5 DC 100
200
300
W N Ct 400 ,
I:lcurpln\masterslrevised\anxpetn.mst 15-Aug-02
o
.TO TNE COUNC(L OF THE CtTY OF TtGARD, OREGOH: We, the undersigned owner(s) of the property described belaw and/or ~elector(s) residing at the referenced location(s), hereby petitioo for, and give consent to, Annexation of said property to the City of Tigard. We understand that flh,e City wil( revisw this requesf in accordance wifh
ORS Chapter 222 and applicable regional and- local policies prior to approving or denying the request for Annexation.
. : .j.
LEGEND:
PO - Property Owner ' RV - Registered Voter PAGE ~ OF
OV - Pro ert Owner & Re istered Voter .
" ( AM A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SIGN TURE PRINTEp NAME PO RV OV ADDRESS Townshipi Map Tax l.ot Precinct DA71a"
Sectibn Number Number Number
D~ctis Al'aFCZra"Fr.S4- G~ o F' F TZ S OSpc 2 0/ /
7Zrerfo :adr• g72x3
- -
, (;lcurpln\masters\revised\anxpetn.mst 15-Aug-02
jU
TO THE COUNCIL OF THE C(TY OF TIGARD, OREGON: We, the undersigned owner(s) of the propert described below and/or ~elector(s) residing at the referenced location(s), hereby petifion for, and MS e consent to, Annexation of said property ~o the City of Tigard. We understand that fh,e City will review this request in accordance wifh
Chapter 222 and applicable regional and- local policies prior to approving or denying the request for Annexation.
LEGEND:
PO - Property Owner •
RV - Registered Voter PAGE OF
OV • Pro ert Owner & Re fstered Voter
~ -i AM A . PROPERTY DESCRIPTION IGN PRINTED NAME . PO RV 4V ADDRESS Townshipl Map Tax Lot Prec(nct DAT~-"
'Sectlon Number Number Number
~k
, i:\curplnlmasters\revisedlanxpetn.mst 15-Aug-02