Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2020-11-03 - Number 5.3 - Ordinance 2852 Annexing Property at 5950 Harrington Ave AN 20-0005 5.3 Dj'p` 4� COUNCIL REPORT OREGO� Subject: Ordinance 2852 Annexing Property at 5950 Harrington Avenue; AN 20-0005 Report Date: October 19, 2020 Staff Member: Paul Espe, Associate Planner Meeting Date: November 3, 2020 Department: Planning and Building Services Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion Z Approval Z Public Hearing ❑ Denial Z Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑ Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: This annexation is being processed as a ❑ Council Direction public hearing as provided under Metro Code ❑ Consent Agenda 3.09.050 (A-D). Staff Recommendation: Tentatively approve Ordinance 2852 and direct staff to prepare a final ordinance with findings. Recommended Language for Motion: Move to tentatively approve Ordinance 2852 and direct staff to present a final ordinance with findings on November 17, 2020. Project/Issue Relates To: ❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ®Not Applicable EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/BACKGROUND The proposed annexation is owner-initiated and will result in the addition of approximately 0.28 acres of residential land and approximately 306 linear feet of Harrington Avenue right-of-way and 574 linear feet of Mellon Avenue right-of-way (880 linear feet total).This Council report describes the reasons for the annexation and provides basic background information. The criteria for approving annexations and findings in support of this annexation are included in Attachment C of Exhibit A-1. Public comments received prior to publication of the Council Report are summarized in the Public Comment section of the report. Owner/Applicant: Joseph Buck Location/Size:The subject property (without the public right-of-way) consists of 0.28 acres (12,197 square feet) and is located on the southwest corner of Lake Forest Blvd., and Harrington Avenue. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city Page 2 '^ '� 16294 Existing Land Use: Tax Lot 5700 is occupied by a g IF' 2. o s �, single-family dwelling and takes access from " 15316 18 ° Harrington Avenue. rn a�rrlr ! � --''' ._' itg 0,-'0,4, .0 33 76 444 , Or Neighborhood: The property is located within 'B4 — 184"' 16444 �0s� the Lake Forest Neighborhood. 15485 1B4% 16463 16470 i 16 Purpose of Annexation: The property owner 16 525 _1B5d0 1b5U initiated the annexation to become a Lake 7fi 532 R-7.5 Oswego Elector. T. �° S F 4 DISCUSSION 22 a sw ro ig 4 Plan and Zone Designation:The subject property is currently under Clackamas County's jurisdiction and zoned R-10, Low Density Residential. It is designated R-7.5, Low Density Residential on the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map and will be zoned R-7.5 upon annexation. Development Potential: Based on the size and configuration of the property, with the proposed R-7.5 zoning, it cannot be further divided. Sensitive Lands: There are no Sensitive Lands designations on the property. Statewide Goal 10 and Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Statewide Goal 10 Housing City Comprehensive Plan Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Chapter Statewide Planning Goal 10 (and the Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Goal in the City Comprehensive Plan) ensures the opportunity to provide adequate numbers of needed housing units, the efficient use of buildable land within urban growth boundaries, and to provide greater certainty in the development process so as to reduce housing costs. Staff has provided findings (Exhibit A, Attachment B) that the proposed annexation and designation of City R-7.5 zoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including the City's Buildable Lands Analysis and Housing Needs Analysis, which anticipates the City eventually annexing all of the unincorporated lands that exist within the USB and applying the appropriate zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use designations. The proposal has no effect on the City's Buildable Lands Inventory or Housing Needs Analysis and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore complies with Goal 10. See attachment B for the complete findings under Goal 10. Sewer and Water Service: Sanitary sewer service is available from a City of Lake Oswego collection line approximately 1,675 feet south of the property at the intersection of Lake Forest Blvd., Washington Court and Inverurie Road. A future sewer extension could be constructed along Lake Forest Blvd. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 A second option for sewer extension would be from an existing Lake Oswego collection line located over 1,800 feet away at the intersection of Washington Court and Wright Lane. This line would extend north from Washington Court along Astor Avenue and then east along Harrington Avenue to the property. Upon any future connection to the City collection line, the existing septic tank on the property will need to be decommissioned per DEQ standards. The property is served by the Lake Grove Water District water main located in Harrington Avenue and SW Lake Forest Blvd. The nearest existing fire hydrant is located along the site at the intersection of Harrington Avenue and SW Lake Forest Blvd. Storm Water (DEQ Underground Injection Control — UIC) Class V storm water drainage wells use subsurface infiltration to manage surface water runoff (rainwater or snow melt). The Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations (40 DFR144.3) define storm water drainage wells as: A bored, drilled or driven shaft whose depth is greater than the largest surface dimension; or, dug hole whose depth is greater than the largest surface dimension; or an improved sink hole; or a subsurface fluid distribution system. With this annexation, the City would increase the number of UIC storm facilities associated with the roadway systems by at least two new structures. These facilities would be added to the City's permitting and inventory system, and regulated by the Department of Environmental Equality (DEQ). After annexation, on-site surface water management will fall under various provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. Service Districts: Upon annexation, this property will, by operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from the Lake Grove Fire District#57,The Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County and the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District but will remain in the Lake Grove Park District, the Library District of Clackamas County and the Lake Grove Water District. Transportation: Annexation of this property would also include annexation of approximately 860 feet of the public right-of-way along Mellon and Harrington Avenues, starting from the intersection of Mellon Avenue/Seville Avenue. The short section of the Seville Avenue public right-of-way at its intersection with Mellon Avenue is already within the City. The public right-of-way along Mellon Avenue is a Clackamas County public local access road, and the maintenance jurisdiction and permitting authority for this street will automatically fall under the City's jurisdiction for maintenance upon annexation. These roadways will be added to the City's pavement management inventory and will be considered in conjunction with other streets throughout the City for future rehabilitation programing. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 4 The Tri Met Bus line 37, which operates between the Tualatin Park and Ride and downtown Lake Oswego, provides the closest bus service to the property. Service can be accessed at the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Washington Court. The draft findings provided in Attachment B of Exhibit A-1 conclude that the proposed annexation complies with all applicable State statutes and Metro code requirements. FISCAL IMPACT The estimated assessed value of the residential property is $404,702. The estimated annual tax revenue after the lot is annexed is$1,047. PUBLIC COMMENT Prior to publication of this report, the City received two public comments, a letter(Exhibit E-3) and a phone call from Linda Callantine at 16532 Mellon Avenue opposing the annexation (documented as a staff memo, Exhibit E-4). Staff has responded to points in the letter that relate to review of the annexation application and the City Council's conduct of the public hearing, below. 1. Equal Application of the 90 Day Filing Deadline: The letter states that the application is not timely because it was submitted after the 90-day filing deadline and is too late to be scheduled for the October 6, 2020 hearing. Staff Response: The question of the filing deadline is moot as the application is now scheduled to go before City Council on November 3, more than 90 days after filing. However, the 90-day deadline stated on the application form ("The applicant needs to file an application a minimum of 90 days before the annexation hearing date") is not a code requirement; it is an administrative policy that is intended to provide staff with sufficient time for processing annexation applications on a quarterly basis. Staff may accept applications less than 90 days before a prospective hearing date, as was done in the case of 5950 Harrington, when workload allows and all code requirements for processing the application, including noticing, can be met. Staff applies this discretion equally and reasonably as discussed below. The submittal deadline for the Council meeting of October 6, is July 6, 2020. In certain circumstances, such as a failing septic system or the pending sale of a property, staff will allow the application to be submitted several days and sometimes weeks after the quarterly deadline to avoid a potential three-month delay. In other cases, staff may accept an application a few days after the 90-deadline when workload allows and all code requirements for processing can be met. In this case, the application was submitted on July 9, three days after the deadline. In light of the fact that this application was submitted only a few days after the deadline and the City had only one other application request scheduled for City Council review on October 6, staff determined that ample time remained to process the application for 5950 Harrington. Staff tries to balance these deadline requirements with other Council policies addressing efficiency in City operations, including reduction of regulatory barriers wherever reasonably possible, without sacrificing community safety, aesthetics and livability. In conclusion, staff tries to be fair and reasonable in its review of annexation applications. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 5 2. Ex Parte Contact (Administrative Procedure No. 5) and applying Review Criteria: The letter states the applicant, Mr. Buck, had contacts with City Council members regarding his annexation application and asks if Council members are required to address ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest or bias sufficient to recuse themselves from the process. It also suggests that ex parte contact rules are intended to ensure that the Council will simply focus on applying the facts to the review criteria. Staff Response: At the time of the public hearing, members of City Council will have the opportunity to disclose any ex parte contacts they may have had regarding this application, as well as to make any necessary declarations related to conflicts of interest or bias.The City Council must rely on evidence in the record and apply the applicable approval criteria under state law, Metro Code and the City Development Code when formulating a decision on the proposed annexation. 3. Conflict of Interest, bias, residential qualification and monetary Rain from real estate commission: This section of the letter discusses favoritism through public endorsement, campaign contributions, a relative's commission on sale of the property, and whether the annexation would cure any residential qualification issues for a property owner/candidate at the time of election. Staff Response: If the final annexation ordinance is approved on November 17, the ordinance won't become effective until December 17, 2020. In addition, for the annexation to be complete, it must be approved by the Oregon Secretary of State's office and there is usually a two to three week waiting period after the local effective date of the adopted ordinance before that occurs. Therefore, this annexation, if approved, will not be effective on the date of the election. Whether the effective date of the annexation of this property would have any effect on a candidate's eligibility for office is not an annexation criterion and is beyond the scope of this report. City Council members will have the opportunity to declare any issues relating to bias or conflicts of interest at the beginning of the proceedings. 4. Cherry Stem Annexations and adopted city policy: This section of the letter discusses a motion approved by City Council relating to cherry stem annexations on September 18, 2018. It states that the motion to disallow cherry stem annexations was unanimously approved. At the December 4, 2018 meeting the Council considered Resolution 18-49, which would have updated the City Council policy on annexations, but the resolution was never adopted. The letter goes on to argue that because the Council did not adopt Resolution 18-49, that left the September 18, 2018 motion disapproving of cherry stem annexations in place. Staff Response: At the September Council meeting, a motion was made to discontinue cherry stem annexations. Before the vote on the motion, City Manager clarified that the motion was preliminary direction from the Council and that staff would return with specific policy language implementing the direction. At the December meeting, staff presented a draft resolution which among other things, addressed lot-by-lot and cherry stem annexations. Motions on the resolution failed. The Council 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 6 provided no direction to staff to conduct additional research or to prepare a revised proposal on the matter of lot-by-lot and cherry stem annexations but instead decided to focus on encouraging the Southwood Park neighborhood to annex through an election in the fall of 2019. Therefore, staff has interpreted the motion regarding cherry stem annexations ("preliminary while staff worked on a more comprehensive annexation policy proposal") as no longer effective. Further, due to the lack of subsequent direction from Council on annexation policy (none was provided during the City Council's 2020 goalsetting), staff is not working on annexation policy amendments or reforms at this time. Therefore, in its review of annexation petitions filed by property owners, staff adheres to existing City code, the Comprehensive Plan, and applicable Oregon Statutes and Metro Code requirements while following the City's existing, published annexation policy, which follows (emphasis added): Annexation: The City Council supports the policy of'friendly annexation"of residential areas. Annexation will be with the consent of the owners of affected residential properties, even if this results in the short term in irregular boundaries or islands of unincorporated areas. The City may, however, take an active role in the annexation of developed commercial and industrial property within Lake Oswego's urban service area. RECOMMENDATION Approve AN 20-0005 (Ordinance 2852). EXHIBITS A. Ordinance A-1 Ordinance 2852 (Draft 10/19/20) Attachment A: Map of Proposed Annexation, 09/15/20 Attachment B: Criteria, Findings, Conclusion and Effective Date, 10/19/20 B. Minutes [No current exhibits] C. Staff Reports [No current exhibits] D. Graphics/Plans [No current exhibits] E. Written Materials E-1 Buildable Lands Inventory (2013 Comprehensive Plan, Economic Opportunities Analysis, excerpt), 03/18/13 E-2 Housing Needs Analysis (2013 Comprehensive Plan, excerpt), 03/19/13 E-3 Letter from Mike Kohlhoff, 9-17-20 E-4 Staff Memo to file recording opposition by Linda Callantine, 16532 Mellon 10/15/20 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city DRAFT 10/19/20 ORDINANCE 2852 AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ONE PARCEL CONSISTING OF 0.28 ACRES AT 5950 SW HARRINGTON AVENUE AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY AT HARRINGTON AVENUE AND MELLON AVENUE; DECLARING CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ZONING PURSUANT TO LOC 50.01.004.5(a-c);AND REMOVING THE TERRITORY FROM CERTAIN DISTRICTS (AN 20- 0005). WHEREAS, annexation of the territory to the City of Lake Oswego shown in the map in Attachment "A" and described below, would constitute a contiguous boundary change under ORS 222.111, initiated by petition from the property owners as outlined in ORS 222.111(2); and, WHEREAS, the city has provided written notification of this annexation to necessary parties, surrounding properties by publishing, in the newspaper, a notice once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of the hearing and posted in four different locations throughout the city as outlined in ORS 222.120(3). WHEREAS, the City has received consent for the proposed annexation from more than half the owners of land in the territory, who own more than half of the land in the territory and more than half of the assessed value of the land in the territory, as required by ORS 222.170; and, WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Lake Grove Fire District#57 will, by operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from that district immediately upon approval of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District will, by operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from the district upon approval of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County will by operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from the district upon approval of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, LOC 50.01.004.5 specifies that, where the Comprehensive Plan Map requires a specific Zoning Map designation to be placed on the territory annexed to the City, such a zoning designation shall automatically be imposed on the territory as of the effective date of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, this annexation is consistent with the Urbanization Chapter of the City of Lake Oswego's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, Oregon Revised Statutes 222.111(2) ORS 222.120 and 222.170 for boundary changes, and Metro Code Sections 3.09.040(a)(1-4), 3.09.050 and 3.09.045 (D and E). Now,therefore,the City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The real property described as follows is hereby annexed to the City of Lake Oswego: Ordinance 2852,AN 20-0005 (21E07CD05700) EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 1 OF 3 DRAFT 10/19/20 A tract of land located within the southwest quarter of Section 7,Township 2 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian, City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Lot 2, Block 7, Lake Forest Plat No. 2 (Plat No. 536), plat records of Clackamas County. Together with the right-of-way of a portion of Harrington Avenue (County Road No. 1592); said portion being bounded westerly by the northerly projection of east line of Block 9, of said Lake Forest Plat No. 2; said portion bounded easterly by the northwesterly projection of the northeasterly line of said Lot 2. The right-of-way of said portion being variable in width; said portion being 316 feet, more or less, in length. Also together with the right-of-way of a portion of Mellon Avenue; said portion being bounded southerly by the westerly projection of south line of Block 25, of said Lake Forest Plat No. 2; said portion bounded northerly by the westerly projection of the north line of Block 8, of said Lake Forest Plat No. 2. The right-of-way of said portion being variable in width; said portion being 560.0 feet, more or less, in length. The annexed territory is depicted on Attachment A. Section 2. The annexed area lies within the following districts and shall be retained within these districts upon the effective date of annexation: Library District of Clackamas County Lake Grove Park District Lake Grove Water District Section 3. The annexed area lies within the following districts and shall be withdrawn from these districts upon the effective date of annexation: Lake Grove Fire District#57 Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County Section 4. In accordance with LOC 50.01.004.5, the City zoning designation of R-7.5 shall be applied to the subject property on the effective date of annexation, as shown on Attachment A. Section 5. The City Council hereby adopts the findings of fact and conclusions set forth in Attachment B in support of this annexation ordinance. Section 6. Effective Dates: a. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance. Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter, Section 35.C, this ordinance shall be effective on the 30' day after its enactment. b. Effective Date of Annexation. Following the filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall be effective upon the later of either: Ordinance 2852,AN 20-0005 (21E07CD05700) EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 2 OF 3 DRAFT 10/19/20 1. the 30th day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or 2. the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State. Provided, however, that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the annexation as established above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or general election or after the deadline for filing notice of election before any other election held by any city, district or other municipal corporation involved in the area to be annexed, the annexation shall become effective on the day after the election. Read by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on day of , 2020. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Dated ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell, City Attorney Ordinance 2852,AN 20-0005 (21E07CD05700) EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 3 OF 3 �// "�'" ' ' CO Annexation to the City of Lake Oswego - 16240 1624 / AN 20-0005/Ordinance 2852 N/ " tib, t\ev a.5 16266 �� �e h� �' t\ CL 16294 IN a' a) a) !,v 0°3 , o� co _, o o '•�O O°� 01 (xi ' w ��3 `2,r 16320 _ 16316 SW Harringt +����%AA.- I�i. xv a_' a' a' Z// % .�` — N N) CO 0 / ON CO CO ,�r�., / O N .� c� bt 016 , 346> 164 16 444 "", t\� -4- 33 16 441 444cv '( 16 496 / D� 16 485 16 463 16 470 Ng° 0D 16 525 16 540 16 508 ,\co�`� R-7.5 t.b / 16 532 1 I N � 0 0 1 Cn (xi (xi ca _ oW 1I (001 cc) cc) (xi 1 CW3i CON SW Seville 'Ave i 00 1 a) a, ; i 1 N 0 1 1 0 (xi°° /6) a) 1 1 CO CO 6' > Co I 4p CA)r'�, Q i CO CO -Pflt 1 P. .(--, Attachment Aii ;�� °4� ii Tax Lot Ds: 21E07CD05700 ,.. 1 I 16 5 City of Lake Oswego: 1_ i COMPREHENSIVE PLAN = R-7.5, Residential a 1 1 ZONING = R-7.5, Residential _ Millrfilli Clackamas County: N / ti167, ZONING = R-10, Residential Arredowwile4 --1 Lake Oswego Subject167� L— City Limits Property i-110 IV 0 60 120 180 240 300 g Feet 9/15/2020 1 4!_, A.. October 19, 2020 ATTACHMENT B Criteria, Findings, Conclusion, and Effective Date APPLICABLE CRITERIA: A. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Boundary Changes; Mergers and Consolidations. 1. ORS 222.111(2) Authority and Procedure for Annexation; Specifying Tax Rate in annexed territory. 2. ORS 222.120 Procedure for Annexation Without Election; Hearing; Ordinance Subject to Referendum. 3. ORS 222.170 Annexation by Consent Before Public Hearing, or Order for Election; Proclamation of Annexation. B. Metro Code. 1. 3.09.040(A)(1-4) Requirements for Petitions. 2. 3.09.050 Hearing and Decision requirements for Decisions other Than Expedited Decisions C. Comprehensive Plan - Urbanization Chapter 1. Policy A-3: "The Urban Services Boundary (as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Map) is the area within which the City shall be the eventual provider of the full range of urban services." 2. Policy C-3: "Ensure that annexation of new territory or expansion of Lake Oswego's Urban Services Boundary does not detract from the City's ability to provide services to existing City Residents." 3. Policy C-4: "Prior to the annexation of non-island properties, ensure urban services are available and adequate to serve the subject property or will be made available in a timely manner by the City or a developer, commensurate with the scale of the proposed development." D. Comprehensive Plan—Complete Neighborhoods and Housing (Statewide Goal 10) Policy B-1: "Provide and maintain zoning and development regulation that allow the opportunity to develop an adequate supply and variety of housing types, and that accommodate the needs of existing and future Lake Oswego Residents." E. OAR 660-008-0010 -Allocation of Buildable Land FINDINGS: A. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Boundary Changes; Mergers and Consolidations. 1. ORS 222.111(2) Authority and Procedure for Annexation Specifying Tax Rate in annexed territory. ORS 222.111(2) provides that a proposal for annexation of territory to a City may be initiated by the legislative body of the City, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative body of the City by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed. The property owner has petitioned the City for this annexation.The proposed annexation complies with this statute. Ordinance 2852 (AN 20-0005) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 1 OF 13 October 19, 2020 2. ORS 222.120 Procedure for Annexation Without Election; Hearing; Ordinance Subject to Referendum. ORS 222.120 states that an election need not be held on the question of annexation within the territory proposed if the legislative body provides for a duly noticed public hearing before the legislative body at which time the electors of the City may appear and be heard on the question of annexation. The City has provided written notification of this annexation by publishing a notice once each week for two consecutive weeks prior to the day of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and posted the notice of public hearing in four public places as required under ORS 222.120(3). The notice will be published in the Lake Oswego Review on Wednesday, October 21 and Wednesday, October 28. A notice was also posted on site on October 14, 2020.The notices contained information about the affected territory, time and place of the public hearing and the means by which any person can obtain a copy of the written report. The annexation notification and review procedures comply with this statute. 3. ORS 222.170-Annexation by Consent Before Public Hearing, or Order for Election; Proclamation of Annexation. ORS 222.170 states that an election need not be held on the question of annexation within the territory proposed to be annexed if more than half of the owners of land in that territory consent in writing to the annexation.These owners must also own more than half of the land in the territory to be annexed and more than half of the assessed value of all of the land in the territory. The sole property owner of 5950 Harrington Avenue has consented to the annexation on the annexation petition (on file). The proposed annexation complies with this statute. The proposed annexation includes the portion of Harrington Avenue that extends along the north property frontage, extending in a westerly direction for approximately 300 ft. to its intersection with Mellon Avenue and a portion of Mellon Avenue extending in a southerly direction approximately 575 ft. to its intersection with Seville Avenue'. B. Metro Code 1 3.09.030—Notice Requirements A. The notice requirements apply to all boundary change decisions by a reviewing entity except expedited decisions made pursuant to MC 3.09.045. These requirements apply in addition to, and do not supersede applicable requirements of ORS Chapters 197, 198, 221 and 222 and any city or county charter provision on boundary changes. B. Within 45 days after a reviewing entity determines that a petition is complete,the entity shall set a time for deliberations on a boundary change. The reviewing entity shall give notice of its proposed deliberations by mailing notice to all necessary parties, by weatherproof posting of notice in the general vicinity of the affected territory and by publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected territory. Notice shall be mailed and posted at least 20 days prior to the date of deliberations. Notice shall be published as required by state law. ' The right-of-way is exempt from ad valorem taxation. Consequently under ORS 222.170(3)the right of way is not considered when determining the number of owners,the area of land or the assessed valuation required for consent, unless an "owner"of the right of way filec a ctatament rnncentina to nr nrpocing annexation nn nr hafnra tha Hate of the public hearirla Ordinance 2852 (AN 20-0005) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 2 OF 13 October 19, 2020 C. The notice requirements in Subsection B shall: 1) Describe the affected territory in a manner that allows certainty; 2) State the date,time and place where the reviewing entity will consider the boundary change; and 3) State the means by which any person may obtain a copy of the reviewing entity's report on the proposal Metro Code 3.09.030 states that the notice requirements apply to all boundary change decisions by a reviewing entity except expedited decisions made pursuant to MC 3.09.045. These requirements apply in addition to, and do not supersede applicable requirements of ORS Chapters 197, 198, 221 and 222 and any city or county charter provision on boundary changes. The City has provided written notification of this annexation to necessary parties, surrounding properties and through the posting of the notice of annexation on the property on October 14, 2020, 20 days prior to the date of the public hearing for annexation as required under MC 30.09.030 B. The notice contained information about the affected territory, time and place of the public hearing and the means by which any person can obtain a copy of the written report. The annexation notification and review procedures comply with the Metro code requirements. 1. 3.09.040- Requirements for Petitions. (A) A petition for a boundary change must contain the following information: 1) The jurisdiction of the reviewing entity to act on the petition; 2) A map and a legal description of the affected territory in the form prescribed by the reviewing entity; 3) For minor boundary changes,the names and mailing addresses of all persons owning property and all electors within the affected territory as shown in the records of the tax assessor and county clerk; and, 4) For boundary changes under ORS 198.855 (3), 198.857, 222.125 or 222.170, statements of consent to the annexation signed by the requisite number of owners or electors. The above information was submitted as required by Metro Code. The property owner who is also an elector has signed the application and petition. A map and legal description in the form required by the City have been included in the application materials and are on file. The sole owner has consented to the annexation on the annexation petition, meeting the consent requirements of ORS 222.170. The annexation petition complies with the Metro code requirements. 2. 3.09.045—(D-E) Expedited Decisions (criteria incorporated for non-expedited decisions by MC 3.09.050(D)) D. To approve a boundary change through decisions made through procedures other than expedited,the reviewing entity shall apply the criteria and consider the factors set forth in Subsections (D) and (E) of section 3.09.045: 1. Find that the change is consistent with expressly applicable provisions in: a. Any applicable urban service agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065 Ordinance 2852 (AN 20-0005) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 3 OF 13 October 19, 2020 The City has entered into ORS 195.065 agreements with: 1) Lake Oswego School District, 2) Lake Grove Fire District. Lake Oswego School District:The City and the Lake Oswego School District entered into an ORS 195.065 urban service agreement for park services in July, 2003. The School District operates the Lake Grove Swim Park located at 3800 Lakeview Boulevard. The agreement states that the annexation of property by the City within the Lake Grove Park District (which funds the swim park) shall not cause the withdrawal of the property from the district. Lake Grove Fire District: The City and District entered into an ORS 195.065 urban service agreement for fire protection in July, 2003. The agreement states that upon annexation of property within the district by the City, the annexed property shall be withdrawn from the District and the City shall provide fire protection services. The proposed annexation is consistent with these agreements b. Any applicable annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205. There are no applicable annexation plans adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205 relating to the affected territory. c. Any applicable cooperative planning agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.020(2) between the affected entity and a necessary party. There are no ORS 195.020(2) cooperative agreements (which relate to special districts) between the city and a necessary party. d. Any applicable public facility plan adopted pursuant to a statewide planning goal on public facilities and services. Consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities) and the Community Health and Public Safety Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the City maintains a Public Facilities Plan (PFP). The PFP consists of master plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, and storm water facilities, which provide the basis for long-range planning for both the incorporated and unincorporated lands within Lake Oswego's Urban Services Boundary. The PFP is comprised of the Lake Oswego Transportation System Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, Water System Master Plan, and Clean Streams (Storm Water) Plan, pursuant to Statewide Planning Goals 11 (Public Facilities) and 12 (Transportation). Wastewater Master Plan: Sanitary sewer service can be made available from an existing sewer line at the intersection of Washington Ct. and Lake Forest Blvd. Another connection point exists at the intersection of Washington Ct. and Wright Ln. These extension routes are described in detail below: • Washington Ct./Lake Forest Blvd.: The first option would be a connection from an existing sewer that is located at the intersection of Lake Forest Blvd./Washington Ct./Inverurie Rd., approximately 1,675 feet south of the property. This extension could be constructed along Lake Forest Blvd. • Washington Ct./Wright Ln.: A potential second option would be through the construction of a future sewer extension from an existing public sewer located at the intersection of Washington Ct. and Wright Ln. over 1,800 feet south of the property. This extension could be constructed along Astor Ave. from Washington Ct. and then east Ordinance 2852 (AN 20-0005) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 4 OF 13 October 19, 2020 along Harrington Ave. to the property. The Waste Water Master Plan indicates that under both scenarios, the public sewer would terminate at this property and would not be extended. This property has been recently redeveloped with a new septic system and new single-family home. Since the sewer would be more than 300 feet away from the majority of the properties along the annexed right-of-way they would be granted permits from Clackamas County to repair or modify their septic systems. Most of these properties, including the subject property would likely undergo the repair or replacement of their septic systems instead of incurring the extra cost of constructing a new sewer line. Future annexation and connection of these properties to the city sewer system along these rights-of-way in the near future would be unlikely. The sanitary sewer service that would potentially serve this property in the future and those properties along the public right-of-way would be provided in a manner that is consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan. Water System Master Plan: Water is available from a six-inch Lake Grove Water District (LGWD) line in Harrington Avenue and an eight-inch water main in Lake Forest Blvd. along the site frontage. This property will remain in the LGWD and will continue to be a LGWD customer. Future extension of water lines, if needed to serve development, will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the City's Water System Master Plan and LGWD standards. This system is being maintained in accordance with the provisions of the City's Water System Master Plan. The nearest existing fire hydrant is located at the southwest corner of Lake Forest Blvd and Harrington Ave. The City and the district agreed to construct an interconnection between the two water systems and that the City will furnish and sell surplus water to the District under certain conditions and set rates for district purchase of City water.The City Council also adopted a resolution in 1994 (Resolution 94-22) indicating the City would not withdraw this property from the district upon annexation. The territory will not be withdrawn from the district upon annexation. The proposed annexation is consistent with the Water System Master Plan. Clean Streams (Storm Water) Plan: (DEQ Underground Injection Control — UIC) Class V storm water drainage wells use subsurface infiltration to manage surface water runoff(rainwater or snow melt). The Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations (40 DFR144.3) define storm water drainage wells as: A bored, drilled or driven shaft whose depth is greater than the largest surface dimension; or, dug hole whose depth is greater than the largest surface dimension; or an improved sink hole; or a subsurface fluid distribution system. With this annexation, the City would increase the number of UIC storm facilities associated with the roadway systems by at least two new structures. These facilities would be added to the City's permitting and inventory system, and regulated by the Department of Environmental Equality (DEQ). Ordinance 2852 (AN 20-0005) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 5 OF 13 October 19, 2020 After annexation, on-site surface water management will fall under various provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. It does not appear that any new impervious surfaces will be proposed as part of this annexation. However, storm water runoff that comes from new and/or replaced impervious surface areas from any future development shall be managed on-site, consistent with the City's Clean Streams (Storm Water) Plan. Transportation (Statewide Planning Goal 12): The City's Transportation System Plan implements the multi-modal transportation system that will meet the needs of the city for a 20-year planning horizon. Annexation of this property would also include annexation of approximately 860 feet of public right-of-way along Mellon and Harrington Avenues, starting from the intersection of Mellon and Seville Avenues. The short segment of Seville Avenue at the intersection of Mellon Avenue is already annexed. The public right-of-way along Mellon Avenue is a Clackamas County public local access road, and the maintenance jurisdiction and permitting authority for this street will automatically fall under the City's jurisdiction upon annexation. Both Seville Avenue and Harrington Avenue are County Roads and are under the jurisdiction of Clackamas County. These right-of-way segments will be within the City's boundaries upon annexation; however, the road maintenance jurisdiction and permitting authority for these streets will not be transferred to the City of Lake Oswego until it is appropriate to complete a formal road transfer process with the County in the future. From a jurisdiction maintenance perspective, it is desired to transfer longer segments of road between intersections in order to prevent individual piecemeal segments in the middle of the block. Small segment transfers cause problems for maintenance responsibility, permitting for other franchise utilities, and confusion regarding piecemeal improvements. In the written comments provided by Engineering Staff on August 5, 2020 by the Engineering Staff maintains that the annexation of these roadways increases the City's asset and pavement management inventory. Once under the City's maintenance jurisdiction, these roadways become the city's responsibility. The current pavement management index (PCI) for Mellon Avenue is 30, Seville Avenue is 22 and Harrington Avenue is 30. A PCI index between 70 and 85 is considered to be "satisfactory". The only roadway rehabilitation options for streets with this low of a PCI is complete reconstruction. All three segments will be added to the pavement management inventory and will be considered in conjunction with other streets throughout the City for future rehabilitation programing. The Tri Met Bus line 37, which operates between the Tualatin Park and Ride and downtown Lake Oswego, provides the closest bus service to the property. Service can be accessed at the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Washington Court. Ordinance 2852 (AN 20-0005) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 6 OF 13 October 19, 2020 e. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies Comprehensive Plan Map: This property is currently designated R-10, Low Density Residential on Clackamas County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. It is designated Low Density Residential, R-7.5 on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. Upon annexation, a City zoning designation of R-7.5 will be applied to this property. The City and County have coordinated their comprehensive plans within the Dual Interest Area outlined in the City/County Urban Growth Management Agreement (dated February 4, 1992 and updated November 18, 1997), hence the City/County designations have been determined to be compatible. The proposed zoning designation of R-7.5 is consistent with the Urban Growth Management Agreement between the County and the City. Comprehensive Plan Policies: The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan contains the following relevant language in the Urbanization chapter: Policy A-3: "The Urban Services Boundary (as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Map) is the area within which the City shall be the eventual provider of the full range of urban services."The property to be annexed is within the City's Urban Services Boundary. Therefore, the proposed annexation and the withdrawal of this property from the identified districts is consistent with this policy. Policy C-3: "Ensure that annexation of new territory or expansion of Lake Oswego's Urban Services Boundary does not detract from the City's ability to provide services to existing City residents." The approval of this annexation will result in the addition of 0.28 acres to be served by the City. As stated in this section below, the addition of this territory will not detract from the City's ability to provide police and fire protection to existing City residents. While these agencies have reported that this annexation would not have an impact on their ability to provide services, staff notes that the continued practice of"Cherry-Stem Annexations" or annexing properties that include long sections of right-of-way where the bulk of the annexed property "cherry" is connected by a narrow section of roadway the "stem", may have a cumulative effect on the City's ability to provide efficient fire and police services in the future. At their meeting on December 18, 2018, the City Council considered options for annexing properties, extending infrastructure and delivery services more efficiently.This meeting provided an opportunity to implement the 2018 City Council goal to reconsider the Council policy on annexation by formalizing city policies on service delivery for annexations avoiding cherry-stem or incremental annexations. After discussing the policies on service availability and service delivery to unincorporated areas, the Council did not adopt these policies. Annexation of this property will not affect the City's ability to provide parks and recreation services, sewer or water services. Policy C-4: "Prior to the annexation of non-island properties, ensure urban services are available and adequate to serve the subject property or will be made available in a timely manner by the City or a developer commensurate with the scale of the proposed development." Ordinance 2852 (AN 20-0005) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 7 OF 13 October 19, 2020 Availability of urban services serving this property is discussed below: Water: Water is available to serve the subject area, as detailed in subsection D.1.d. Sewer: Sanitary sewer service is available to serve the subject area, as detailed in subsection D.1.d. Storm Water: As detailed in subsection D.1.d, future development will be required to comply with the City standards for storm water management. Fire Protection: Lake Grove Fire District#57 provides fire protection services to this property by agreement with the City of Lake Oswego. Upon annexation, this property will be withdrawn from this fire district and served directly by the City. The fire station on 4555 Jean Road, located southeast of the site, would be able to respond to emergencies under the eight minute goal established in the Comprehensive Plan. Police: Upon annexation, this property will be withdrawn from the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and served by the City of Lake Oswego.The Lake Oswego Police Department reviewed the proposal and indicated that it does not have any concerns with serving this property upon annexation. Parks and Open Space:The City has 629 acres of park and open space lands, or 14.6 acres per 1,000 population. The parks nearest to this property are Waluga Park East, Waluga Park West and Lamont Springs Natural Area. Waluga Park East and West are located north of Oakridge Road and East and West of Waluga Drive. These two parks consist of 53 acres of active and natural passive areas. West Waluga Park includes two lighted baseball fields, a playground picnic shelters, lights and restrooms. Lamont Springs is a natural park with no amenities for organized recreational activities. The City's park system will not be overburdened by any additional population annexed to the City with this application. Lake Grove Park District:The Lake Grove Swim Park, managed by the Lake Oswego School District, and funded by the Lake Grove Park District, is located at 3800 Lakeview Boulevard. The swim park is approximately 1.3 acres in size with restroom, play and swim facilities. This property will remain within the Lake Grove Park District following annexation. Transportation - Streets and Mass Transit: Transportation infrastructure and transit service is available to serve the subject area, as detailed in subsection D.1.d, above. Other Urban Services: Community Development Code Section 50.06.008.3 requires that all development be provided with the following utility services: sanitary sewer, water, sidewalks, pedestrian and bicycle paths, traffic control signs and devices, street lights, streets, and TV cable. These utilities are now in place or can be put in place to serve this property. In the event that future development occurs, an applicant for development is obligated to construct all necessary public facilities to serve their development. Ordinance 2852 (AN 20-0005) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 8 OF 13 October 19, 2020 Statewide Goal 10 and Complete Neighborhoods and Housing City Comprehensive Plan Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Chapter The Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan implements Statewide Housing Goal 10 and the Portland Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-007-0000 et seq.), which requires that the City plan for a supply of residentially zoned land with an average allowed density of 10 dwelling units per net acre, and the opportunity to develop a mix of housing types consisting of not less than 50% attached and multifamily dwellings. Compliance with the State rules ensures the opportunity to provide adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of buildable land within urban growth boundaries, while promoting certainty in the development process to help reduce housing costs. The following Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) provides standards for compliance with Goal 10 "Housing" pursuant to ORS 197.296 (Buildable Lands) and ORS 197.303 through 197.307 (Needed Housing): OAR 660-008-0010 Allocation of Buildable Land The mix and density of needed housing is determined in the housing needs projection. Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local buildable lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each residential plan designation. The City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan-Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Chapter, adopted pursuant to Goal 10 and the Metropolitan Housing Rule, and incorporated herein by reference, is designed to meet Lake Oswego's housing needs for not less than a twenty-year planning period. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates residential land use designations within the City limits and within Lake Oswego's Urban Services Boundary (USB) through the year 2035. The Comprehensive Plan Map's residential land use designations were adopted consistent with the City's Buildable Lands Inventory and Housing Needs Analysis (HNA, 2013), also incorporated herein by reference, and the City of Lake Oswego- Clackamas County Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA), which specifies future zoning of lands with the USB upon annexation to Lake Oswego. The UGMA anticipates the City eventually annexing all of the unincorporated lands that exist within the USB, and application of City zoning to those lands consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; hence, the HNA is for both the incorporated area of Lake Oswego (City) and unincorporated areas within Lake Oswego's Urban Services Boundary (USB). The Comprehensive Plan Map's residential land use designations are based on the HNA. These designations match the corresponding Zoning Map designations such that there is only one Zone for each Plan designation, and therefore only one zone that is applied to each lot upon annexation, consistent with the HNA and in compliance with Goal 10 and the Metropolitan Housing Rule. In the case of the subject application, the applicable Plan Map designation and corresponding Zone Map designation is R-7.5. The City Comprehensive plan and corresponding Zone Map designation of R-7.5 provide a slightly greater amount of Ordinance 2852 (AN 20-0005) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 9 OF 13 October 19, 2020 housing density than R-10, single-family detached residential. If the property were to be redeveloped the zoning would allow one single-family residential unit on the lot. The proposed annexation and designation of City zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Map, and the City's Buildable Lands Inventory, and does not change the City's housing needs from those identified by the HNA; therefore, the annexation and zone change comply with Goal 10 and its implementing administrative rules. In this case the zoning district would satisfy the need for single-family residential housing identified in the Housing Needs Analysis. Staff uses the following approach for drafting findings in response to two types of annexation zone changes: • Option 1 is for annexation-related non-discretionary comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments. • Option 2 is for annexation-related discretionary comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments. "Non-discretionary" amendments are zoning map amendments applied to an annexed property (or properties) where the applicable zoning designation is prescribed by the city's comprehensive plan and a zoning conversion table in the city-county urban growth management agreement (UGMA). "Discretionary" amendments are where more than one zoning designation is applicable, as prescribed by the city's comprehensive plan and the city- county UGMA, and the City Council has discretion in applying zoning. The proposed rezoning in AN 20-0005 is non-discretionary because the zoning is prescribed by the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan and the zoning conversion table in the City of Lake Oswego-Clackamas County UGMA. The City's R-7.5 zone is proposed to be applied consistent with (matches) the R-7.5 land use designation in the City's Goal 10/Metro Housing Rule-compliant comprehensive plan. The City Council does not have discretion to apply a different zone to the subject property unless it is amending the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation; therefore, the City does not evaluate proposed zones against its Housing Needs Analysis (HNA). The City simply applies the zoning that is prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the HNA and the Complete Neighborhoods and Housing (Goal 10) chapter of the Plan. In doing so, the City relies on LOC 50.01.004.5.a, which states that the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map provides for the future City zoning of all property within the City's Urban Service Boundary. In cases where the Comprehensive Plan Map requires a specific zoning map designation, this designation is automatically imposed on territory when the property is annexed to the City. In conclusion, the proposed R-7.5 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and City-County UGMA for the subject property, and the City Council does not have other zoning options from which to choose in approving AN 20-0005. Urban Growth Management Agreement General Urbanization Policy 4.A.4 of the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan calls for the establishment of Urban Growth Management Areas and Urban Growth Management Agreements to clarify planning responsibilities between the County and cities for areas of mutual interest. Ordinance 2852 (AN 20-0005) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 10 OF 13 October 19, 2020 Policy 4.A.5 directs the County to establish agreements with cities and service districts to clarify service and infrastructure responsibilities for areas of mutual interest. Similarly, the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Urbanization Chapter; Policy D-3, calls for entering into and maintaining an Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA) with Clackamas County for lands within the Urban Services Boundary. In furtherance of these policies, the City and County have entered into an Urban Growth Management Agreement that stipulates a mutual interest in coordinated land use planning, compatible comprehensive plans and provision of urban services and facilities. This agreement ensures coordination and consistency between the City and County comprehensive plans and outlines responsibilities in providing services and managing growth within the Dual Interest Area. Subsections 6 and 7, provided below, are applicable to annexations. "6C. City and County Notice and Coordination: The City shall provide notification to the County, and an opportunity to participate, review and comment, at least 35 days prior to the first public hearing on all proposed public facilities plans, legislative changes to the City Comprehensive Plan, or quasi- judicial land use actions adjacent to, or in close proximity to unincorporated areas. The City shall provide notice to the County of private or City initiated annexation requests within five days of the filing of an application with the Portland Metropolitan Boundary Commission." The Urban Growth Management Agreement specifies that the City notify the County of an annexation request within five days of when it is submitted to the Boundary Commission. There is no longer a Boundary Commission for the Portland Metropolitan area. Staff relies on the notice requirements of Metro Code 3.09.030.B, which requires mailing notice to all necessary parties, posting of a weatherproof notice in the general vicinity of the affected territory and by publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected territory. Notice shall be mailed and posted at least 20 days prior to the date of deliberations. The notice required by MC 3.09.030.E shall follow the requirements under MC 3.09.030.C, where the notice shall; describe the affected territory in a manner that allows certainty, state the date, time and place where the reviewing entity will consider the boundary change; and, state the means by which any person may obtain a copy of the reviewing entity's report on the proposal. Clackamas County is a necessary party under the Metro Code definition and was notified on October 14, 20 days before public hearing. "7. City Annexations A. The City may undertake annexations in the manner provided for by law within the Dual Interest Area. The City annexation proposals shall include adjacent road right-of-way to property proposed for annexation. The County shall not oppose such annexations. B. Upon annexation, the City shall assume jurisdiction of the County roads and local access roads pursuant to a separate road transfer agreement between the City and county." Ordinance 2852 (AN 20-0005) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 11 OF 13 October 19, 2020 The City is undertaking this annexation in the manner provided for in the applicable provisions of State Law and Metro Code for the territories that lie within the Dual Interest Area.This annexation is consistent with the City and County comprehensive plans which have been coordinated in the Dual Interest Area within the regional Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The public right-of-way along Mellon Avenue is a Clackamas County public local access road, and the maintenance jurisdiction and permitting authority for this street will automatically fall under the City's jurisdiction upon annexation. Both Seville Avenue and Harrington Avenue are County Roads and are under the jurisdiction of Clackamas County. These right-of-way segments will fall under the City's jurisdiction upon annexation; however; the road maintenance jurisdiction and permitting authority for these streets will not be transferred to the City of Lake Oswego until it is appropriate to complete a formal road transfer process with the County in the future. f. Any applicable concept plan There are no applicable concept plans in this area. 2. Consider whether the boundary change would a. Promote the timely orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services b. Affect the quality and quantity of urban services c. Eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services The proximity of this property to existing City services will allow this annexation to promote the timely, orderly and economical extension of public facilities and services. This property can readily be served with urban services and facilities. If and when additional development occurs in the area, provision of public facilities and services will occur consistent with the City's adopted public facility master plans, ensuring that it does not adversely affect the quality or quantity of urban services and avoiding unnecessary duplication of facilities or services. Therefore, this boundary change is consistent with criteria 2.a through 2.c. E. A city may not annex territory that lies outside the UGB except it may annex a lot or parcel that lies partially within and partially outside the UGB. This property to be annexed is located entirely within the Metro Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). CONCLUSION: Based on the criteria and findings set forth above, the City Council concludes that AN 20-0005 complies with all applicable criteria and the annexation should be approved. EFFECTIVE DATE: A. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance. Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter, Section 35.C., the ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day after its enactment. Ordinance 2852 (AN 20-0005) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 12 OF 13 October 19, 2020 B. Effective Date of Annexation. Following the filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall be effective upon the later of: 1. the 30t" day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or 2. the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State; provided however that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the annexation as established above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or general election or after the deadline for filing notice of election before any other election held by any City, district or other municipal corporation involved in the area to be annexed, the annexation shall become effective on the day after the election. Ordinance 2852 (AN 20-0005) ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 13 OF 13 EXHIBIT E-1 AN 20-0005 INVENTORY OF SUITABLE SITES (LAND SUPPLY) Consistent with the employment land demand forecast, the buildable land inventory (BLI) for the Lake Oswego EOA documents industrial and commercial inventory that currently exists within the Lake Oswego USB. The BLI includes an analysis of existing vacant and partially vacant (sub-dividable) tax lots by current zoning classification and deducted all significant environmental constraints (wetlands, floodplains, stream corridors and slopes greater than 25%) to estimate buildable land area within the Lake Oswego USB. The buildable land area for each tax lot was derived by analyzing GIS data pertaining to environmental features that would constrain the amount of potential site development on vacant and partially vacant areas. The vacant and part-vacant land inventory includes tax lots or parcels that have at least 10,000 square feet (about 1/4 acre) of buildable land area (net of existing developed buildings and environmental and slope constraints). The land supply analysis focused on the land use classifications that can accommodate job growth within the USB and does not include zones with no buildable land. As shown in Table 9, Lake Oswego has four commercial, one institutional and one industrial zoning designation that meet these criteria. Table 9. Lake Oswego Employment Zone Designations Commercial East End General Commercial (EC) General Commercial (GC) West Lake Grove Office Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial (OC/NC) Campus Research & Development (CR&D) Institutional Campus Institutional (CI) Industrial Industrial Park (IP) Prepared by FCS GROUP. The vacant and partially vacant land inventory for the Lake Oswego USB includes 12 tax lots with a total buildable land area of 20.11 acres, as indicated in Table 10. Table 10. Distribution of Vacant and Part Vacant Lands by Land Use Zone Classification, Lake Oswego USB Vacant and Part-Vacant Property Zone 0.26 to 1 Acre 1 to 3 Acres 3 to 6 Acres > 6 Acres Total Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 7 2.98 2 4.63 1 4.67 10 12.3 EC 2 0.57 2 0.6 GC 4 1.89 2 4.63 6 6.5 OC/NC 1 0.52 1 0.5 CR &D 1 4.67 1 4.7 Institutional (CI) 1 6.92 1 6.92 Industrial (IP) 1 0.91 1 0.91 Total 8 3.89 2 4.63 1 4.67 1 6.92 12 20.11 Prepared by FCS GROUP. 03/18/13 Exhibit 5/Page 29 AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 1 March 19, 2013 Update EXHIBIT E-2 Table 20. Residential Dwelling Capacity and Projected Housing Demand, Lake Oswego USB,2010 to 2035 AN 20-0005 Dwelling Unit Capacity and Demand Potential Land Need in by Potential Net Buildable Land Area in Acres Forecast Year 2035 New Dwelllings Needed to Redevel- Meet Pop. Potential Potential opment: Potential Forecast& Dwelling Likely Residential Redevel- Mixed- Dwelling Attain- Unit Residential Land Part opment: Use Unit abiltiy Surplus by Land Need Surplus or Land Use Vacant Vacant R Zones Zones Total Capacity Levels 2035 by 2035 (Deficit)by Classifications (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Acres (dwellings) (dwellings) (dwellings) (acres) 2035(acres) Low Density (primarily large lot SFD in R-7.5, 69.2 502.7 - - 571.9 1,646 783 863 272.1 299.8 R-10,R-15 zones) Medium Density (primarily small 5.5 30.6 104.3 - 140.4 1,017 456 561 62.9 77.5 lot SFD in R-3, R-5 zones) High Density (primarily ME in RO,R-2,R-2.5, 2.6 5.6 22.8 80.9 111.9 2,400 2,321 79 108.2 3.7 GC,NC/RO, OC/R3,EC,HC, CR&D,EC/RO, OC zones) Total 77.3 538.9 127.1 80.9 824.2 5,063 3,560 1,503 443.3 380.9 Updated 03/19/13 5A1Vpbe UUtapSan Housing Needs Analysis EXHIBIT E-2/PAGE 1 OF 1 September 15, 2020 Paul Espe, Lake Oswego Planner PO Box 369 SEP 1 7 2020 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Dear Mr. Espe, I have several questions regarding the evidentiary annexation hearing set for October 6, 2020 for the Joseph Buck property located at 5950 Harrington,Clackamas County, OR, a quasi-judicial hearing where the facts are determined and applied against the applicable rule of law.To the extent some of my questions may also involve legal matters, I am also copying this letter to the City Attorney. This letter should be made a part of the annexation hearing file. in the annexation packet materials on the City's web site,there is an information form that states an application must be filed a minimum of 90 days prior to the hearing, that for the October 6, 2020 hearing the filed application must be by July 2, 2020. l note the application on its face states it was filed July 9, 2020.Thus, it appears the application is not timely for the October 6, 2020 hearing date and should be moved to the next quarter's meeting date. Am I correct to assume the City's requirements are applied equally to all applicants? There is no dispute that Mr. Buck contacted each of the City Council members to discuss his application, which, intended or not, provides the appearance of trying to gain a favorable outcome or perhaps an earlier hearing date than allowed. Now that this is called to the attention of the City, does Administrative Procedure No. 5, last revisited June 7, 2016, by Resolution 16-32, require the members of the City Council to address fully their ex-parte contacts with Mr. Buck about the application and whether they have any conflict of interest or bias sufficient to recuse themselves? Assuming that ex parte contacts must be fully addressed, I understand the law of ex-parte contact is intended to bring about public transparency, in part,to avoid the appearance of back room deals and to focus on whether or not a city councilor can simply apply the facts to the applicable law without favoritism, bias, or actual conflict of interest? To this end and to avoid misperceptions, perhaps the City Attorney might opine on the following questions. As a matter of law, does the mere fact of being a candidate along with Mr. Buck for the position of Mayor provide a disqualifying conflict of interest or bias? Likewise, does the mere fact of a public endorsement and/or cash or in- kind contribution to Mr. Buck candidacy show favoritism sufficient to create bias as a matter of law? As a matter of law, is it not true that the outcome of the annexation will not cure a lack of residential qualification at this property under the Charter at the time of the November 3, 2020 election? Asa matter of law, does any real estate commission a family member may have made on the Buck purchase of the property to be annexed create a conflict of AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 1 OF 3 interest to hear this matter?Of course, some of these questions may either become moot or not relevant should the hearing be rescheduled until the following quarter. The facts of the annexation request are straight forward. In order to meet the contiguous rule for annexations,the lot, which itself is not contiguous to a city boundary, needs to be connected by virtue of annexing a significant portion of a county road, which is known as the"cherry stem". However, a part of applying the facts to applicable law is a determination of what the existing City fiscal policy is toward cherry stem annexations. From the record, it appears the existing, applicable Council fiscal policy for a single lot, cherry stem annexations are that they are disfavored unless the request is to correct a public health issue, such as a failed septic system, or involve creating greater lots such as a lot capable of being divide into 4 or more lots. Unless changed by the City Council, is this the existing policy? My review of the record may have missed something, so here is what the basis is for my question.A very general policy toward annexation exists that focuses on taking steps to increase the area served beyond that proposed by taking steps to notify surrounding properties of the opportunity to join in the requested annexation, adopted by Resolution 00-29, May 2, 2000, and a policy to discourage pre annexation destruction of natural resources under Resolution 04-38,adopted May 18. 2004. Neither appear to be controlling here. In 2018, the City Council had a goal to create a more comprehensive annexation policy especially in light of single lot annexation applications being received and a need for a more forthcoming approach for greater area annexations. At the September 18, 2018 City Council meeting, planning staff provided a report to support going forward with a more comprehensive policy. In that report, among other issues, the negatives of the fiscal costs to the City's taxpayers and utility fee payers for services to single lot, cherry stem annexations were presented. At that meeting, a motion was made to disallow cherry stem annexations, which was unanimously approved by those in attendance, including then councilors Buck, O'Neil, Manz, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Goodman, and Mayor Studebaker. County roads are generally not built to City standards; therefore,City dollars for maintenance repair was also concerning. The City Manager at the time stated it provided direction to staff. At the December 4, 2018 meeting,staff provided proposed Resolutions 18-49 and 18-SO,together with a supporting staff report,that would have adopted a comprehensive approach to annexations. To the extent the report and Resolution 18-49 addressed single lot, cherry stem annexations,they continued the direction of general disapproval over costs, but would allow for two exceptions: 1)create greater lot annexation, if a) part of a greater lot request or b) if the single lot could be subdivided into four or more lots under City zoning upon annexation or 2) if there was present a public health hazard such as a failing septic system. However, some amendments were proposed and neither the amendments nor the Resolution were adopted. Nor were they adopted at the follow up at the meeting of December 18, 2018 where the accompany annexation Resolution 18-50 was finally approved.This left the September 18, 2020 motion to disapprove cherry stem annexations in place. Subsequently, the majority of the Council has not defaulted to its adopted fiscal policy of September 18, 2018, outright disfavoring cherry stem annexations, but has apparently applied a modified policy, allowing them where there is a public health basis or where the lot is large enough to be capable of multi lot subdivision. Whether any of these exceptions are presented by the Buck annexation application appear to be questions of fact. Hence, unless the Council adopts a more liberal fiscal policy, AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 2 OF 3 application of the existing policy as modified appears to be the applicable fiscal policy in support of the taxpayers and rate payers to be used in this case. If so, it would appear the facts for the Council to determine are whether the application involves a public health hazard, is part of a greater lot request, ❑r is at single lot subdividable into 4 or more lots under current City zoning.Should the matter be reset to the next quarter,any deficiencies such as additional lots along the cherry stem might be obtained. Respectfully submitted, M ke Kohlhoff, 3122 ❑iane Drive, Lake Oswego, ❑r 97035 cc: David Powell, City Attorney sent by mail and e-mail AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-3/PAGE 3 OF 3 �',, E s MEMORANDUM � f-f fi � n GREGo\4 TO: File FROM: Paul Espe, Associate Planner Planning and Building Services/ Long range Planning Division SUBJECT: Public Testimony from Linda Callantine DATE: October 15, 2020 Linda Calentine, a resident in unincorporated Clackamas County residing at 16532 Mellon Avenue expressed to staff during a telephone conversation that she opposes the annexation. AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-4/PAGE 1 OF 1 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Further Policy Concerns To: Mayor Studebaker, Members of the Lake Oswego City Council Re: Ordinance 2852 Annexing Property at 5950 Harrington Avenue, AN 20-005 Date: October 23, 2020. In the matter of the hearing on Ordinance 2852 that proposes to annex the property at 5950 Harrington Avenue, by letter of September 15, 020 I raised several questions, which staff has addressed in the staff report of October 19, 2020. One question was about whether or not the petition application was timely filed for the October 6, 2020 meeting under the 90-day prior submission rule. By moving the hearing to November 3, 2020, as staff has reported that question is moot. Since the issue is moot, staff's further position that it may arbitrarily waive enforcing the 90-day filing rule due to light work load and not violate equal protection and procedural due process, is no longer relevant. The seminal question I posed,was whether or not I correctly understood that either in whole or as may have been amended,the applicable Council policy disfavoring single lot, cherry-stem annexations based on a cost benefit analysis remained and was applicable to this petition. The key to the answer is how the Council's action of December 18, 2018, which failed to adopt a proposed comprehensive policy on annexations and subsequent actions on annexations should be interpreted as to cherry-stem annexations. In its October 19, 2020 report response,the staff opines that it interprets the Council's action of December 18, 2018 in failing to approve a proposed comprehensive annexation policy, which among other polices contained polices regarding cherry-stem annexations, as evidencing a repeal of the September 18, 2018 policy regarding cherry-stem annexations. Without clarification, if Council adopts Ordinance 2852 and supporting report and exhibits, staff's interpretation would be adopted as the Council's. As a consequence,the Council would have abandoned any fiduciary duty or obligation to the city's taxpayers and ratepayers to analyze the cost shifted to them by cherry-stem annexations. As set forth below and applied to the annexation before you,the shift of cost of road reconstruction alone to revenue benefit is quite stark. In its 2018 reports to the Council, staff clearly demonstrated that the cost/benefit analysis of cherry- stem annexations disfavored them. At its September 18, 2018 meeting,the council obviously found the staff's information to be compelling, because it unanimously voted to disallow cherry-stem annexations. Subsequently, at its December 18, 2018 meeting the Council,the approved minutes reflect a motion to amend was made to the motion to adopt the proposed comprehensive annexation policy. The motion to amend failed and no further action was taken. Staff summaries this action in Attachment B/Page 7 of 13 of its October 19, 2020, report as follows: "At their meeting of December 18, 2018,the Council considered options for annexing properties, extending infrastructure and delivery services more efficiently. This meeting provided an opportunity to implement the 2018 City Council goal to reconsider the Council policy on annexation by formalizing city policies on service delivery for annexations avoiding AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-5/PAGE 1 OF 4 cherry-stem or incremental annexations. After discussing the policies on service availability and service delivery to unincorporated areas,the Council did not adopt these policies." It should be noted that staff in Attachment B/Page 7 of 13, under Comprehensive Plan Policy C-3 states: "The approval of this annexation will result in the addition of.38 acres to be served by the City. As stated in this section below,the addition of this territory will not detract from the City's ability to provide police and fire protection to existing City Residents. While these agencies have reported that this annexation would not have an impact to provide services,the staff notes the continued practice of"Cherry-Stem Annexations" of annexing properties that include long sections of right-of-way where the bulk of the annexed property"cherry" is connected by a narrow section of roadway the "stem", may have a cumulative effect on the City's ability to provide efficient fire and police services in the future." What is intriguing about the above statement, is it puts the City on notice that it is foreseeable that the probable effect of the practice may cause inefficient police or fire services. If any damage or injury might result,the City's practice may be a contributing factor to establishing any City liability. Staff interpretation that the Council's September 18, 2018 decision has been impliedly revoked by the aforementioned December 18, 2018 non action is based on a two-step approach. The first step is to label the unanimous City Council disfavoring cherry-stem annexation based on a cost/benefit analysis to the taxpayers and ratepayers as merely"preliminary", and was not intended to have any independent legs of its own. The second step, is to deduce: the policy of disfavoring cherry-step annexations was included in the final, proposed comprehensive annexation policy and that policy was not adopted;thus, the intent of the Council can be implied to have revoked its earlier unanimous cherry-stem decision since it was preliminary to the final inclusion. The facts do not necessarily support this interpretation.The approved minutes of the March 18, 2018, which the Council can take judicial notice of, do not reflect the adopted motion was anything other than the intent of a unanimous Council to disfavor cherry-stem annexations. The minutes reflect that after the motion, not before,the City Manager stated it gave the staff direction on this matter. But even if the Manager had stated it before,the unanimously adopted policy disfavoring cherry-stem annexations was clear and unambiguous. It was understood that a more comprehensive policy on annexations would be coming forth later and it was reasonable to include this adopted policy. If included in the comprehensive annexation policy with other types of annexations and the comprehensive policy was adopted, it would be part of a total package. If the total was not adopted,there is no expression by Council that the singular policy, having been adopted, would not remain. It should be further noted that in the comprehensive annexation policy that staff provided, staff did not follow the City Council's earlier motion and direction to outright disfavor cherry-stem annexations, but provided a series of exemptions to allow cherry-stem annexations. Failure to adopt the more comprehensive policy, including certain exemptions for single lot cherry-stem annexations, does not mean the more limited, but express unanimous Council adoption of disfavoring cherry-stem annexation was revoked. It has never been expressly revoked by the City Council. Under the City Charter,the staff does not have the power to amend or revoke express action of the City Council by a staff interpretation per se, only the Council has that authority. Arguably, if one follows the allowance of subsequent annexations,they appear to be based on the exemptions stated in the proposed comprehensive policy AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-5/PAGE 2 OF 4 such as septic failure or multiple lots involved. If one is trying to imply these actions constitute a full revocation of the policy to disfavor,their weight implies an amendment by application, disfavoring unless an exemption applies.Thus, my original question remains open as to what the actual policy is that applies: outright disfavoring cherry-stem annexations, disfavoring subject to exemptions, or favoring by implied revocation? Moreover, staff reliance on an annexation policy of"friendly annexations"to bolster its interpretation is misplaced. The policy language focuses on having annexations be by owner consent, and not by Council fiat. The bold language staff points to supporting a "friendly annexations" policy"even if this results in the short term in irregular boundaries or islands of unincorporated territory", does not preclude disfavoring single lot, cherry-stem based on a cost benefit analysis. However, if staff's interpretation is correct, and the majority of the Council has disavowed the facts of the shifting the costs to taxpayers and ratepayers, staff,to its credit, points out an area of major financial concern. In its October 19, 2020 report, Attachment B/page 6 of 13, states: * * * "Annexation of this property would also include annexation of approximately 860 [lineal]feet of public right-of-way along Mellon and Harrington Avenues, starting from the intersection of Mellon and Seville Avenues. The short segment of Mellon Avenue is Already Annexed. "The public right-of-way along Mellon Avenue is a Clackamas County public local access road, and the maintenance jurisdiction and permitting authority for this street will automatically fall under the City's jurisdiction upon annexation. "Both Seville Avenue and Harrington Avenue are County Roads and are under the jurisdiction of Clackamas County. These right-of-way segments will be within the Cities boundaries upon annexation; however,the road maintenance jurisdiction and permitting authority will not be transferred to Lake Oswego until it is appropriate to complete a formal road transfer process with the county in the future. "From a jurisdictional maintenance perspective, it is desirable to transfer longer segments of road between intersections in order to prevent piecemeal segments in the middle of the block. Small segment transfers cause problem for maintenance responsibility, permitting for other franchise utilities, and confusion regarding piecemeal improvements. "In the written comments provided by the Engineering Staff on August 5, 2020 [by the Engineer Staff, sic] maintains that the annexation of these roadways increases the City's asset and payment management inventory. Once under the City's maintenance jurisdiction,these roadways become the city's responsibility. The current pavement management index(PCI)for Mellon Avenue is 30, Seville is 22, and Harrington Avenue is 30. A PCI index between 70 and 85 is deemed "satisfactory".The only roadway rehabilitation option for streets this low of a PCI is complete reconstruction [emphasis added]. All three segments will be added to the payment management inventory and will be considered in conjunction with other streets throughout the City for future rehabilitation programing." Nowhere does the report indicate what the full reconstruction costs will be. Obviously, costs are affected by street types, width, sidewalks, and various utility placements. My review of costs for shorter AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-5/PAGE 3 OF 4 street sections for urban residential local streets of 20-foot width with curbs, driveway returns and minimal storm drainage, inclusive of demolition, permits and engineering design time would be in the neighborhood of$300 a lineal foot, and at 860 feet, calculates to$258,000. Nowhere does the report indicate that a waiver of remonstration is required in anticipation of a possible local improvement district to fund road reconstruction costs. Elsewhere the report provides the property will generate taxes for the City of approximately$1,000. In todays dollars, $258,000 costs shifted to the road fund with only$1,000 benefit isn't a very good deal for the taxpayers that support a road fund that is over encumbered with in-city projects. Clearly,this type of cost shifting was recognized and opposed by the unanimous vote on September 18. 2018, and obviously remains today. Attachment B/page 5 of 13 notes in regard to storm water and DEQ Underground Injection Control— UIC: "With this annexation,the City would increase the number of UIC storm facilities associated with the roadway systems by at least two new structures." Again, no costs are provided, but we know there will be costs. Ratepayers will pick up these costs. It is interesting to note that staff provided that a Linda Calentine called and was in opposition, but didn't state if she stated the basis for her opposition. If she did,the record should fully reflect the basis for her opposition to aid Counsel in its decision making. Finally, in fairness to the petitioner,the Council could find that in reviewing the matter there was confusion as to the status of the policy and its repeal at the time of petitioner's filing;that the Council's clarification at this time is that the policy was not repealed, but as administered is subject to exceptions noted above going forward, but that the confusion was of sufficient degree that to now declare the policy applied to his petition retroactively would be unfair;thus, allowing the Council to approve the application and to retain a sound policy. I believe the Chapter 2, Powers, sections 4 and 5, of the City Charter provides the Council sufficient authority under the circumstances for such a decision. It would also be a decision that has the Council stepping into the void, stops the future, potential liability from the cumulative effect of incremental cherry-stem annexations as noted above and provides protection for the taxpayers and ratepayers going forward, while keeping the balance of an exception policy. By touching all bases, it is highly unlikely that such a decision would merit an appeal. Respectfully submitted, Michael E. Kohlhoff 3122 Diane Drive Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Cc: Paul Epsy, Planner David Powell, City Attorney AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-5/PAGE 4 OF 4 From: Norma Holcombe<n.holcombe2008@email.com> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 11:27 AM To: CityRecorder<citvrecorder@ci.oswego.or.us> Subject: Annexation of AN 20-0005/Ordinance 2852 To whom it may concern, I'm writing in opposition of the annexation of 5950 Harrington Avenue. I feel this would have a negative impact on the Lake Forest neighborhood. It will raise our property taxes and pave the way to annex the whole neighborhood as Joe Buck is obviously trying to do. I think it's pretty sneaky of Buck to buy a house outside of the city, not live in it but pretend you do, and befriend his neighbors to gain their trust and votes. I saw through his facade and hope a lot of other people will too. Being outside of the city limits, I'm not able to vote against him for mayor but I would cast a NO vote. Please say NO to this annexation and keep the Lake Forest neighborhood out of the politics of the city of Lake Oswego. Thank you, Norma Holcombe p.s. - in closing, it would be nice to see his porch cleaned up of all of his cardboard boxes that have been there for months. I think this may be a good indication of how he will run the city as well. AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-6/PAGE 1 OF 1 From: Marlynn Rust<lorustv4@msn.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 11:45 PM To: Council Distribution <CouncilDistribution@ci.oswego.or.us>; CityRecorder <citvrecorder@ci.oswego.or.us>; Studebaker, Kent<kstudebaker@ci.oswego.or.us>;Wendland,John <iwendland@ci.oswego.or.us>; Nguyen, Daniel <dnguven@ci.oswego.or.us>;tkohloff@ci.oswego.or.us; La Motte,John <ilamotte@ci.oswego.or.us>; Manz,Jackie<imanz@ci.oswego.or.us>; O'Neill, Skip <so'neill@ci.oswego.or.us> Subject: Opposition to Joseph Buck's Annexation - File: AN 20-0005 (proposed Ordinance 2852) Ladies and Gentlemen, This e-mail opposes the annexation above. My husband and I have lived on S.W. Harrington for 39 years. I'm retired from teaching in the LO School District Title 1A program. Joseph Buck, current owner at 5950 S.W. Harrington Avenue bought his home on July 14, 2020 and appears to have moved in permanently during the summer. He comes and goes in his red car at this residence. I assume the filing for annexation is due to Mr. Buck needed City of Lake Oswego residency requirement which he has not had from July 14, 2020 until the present time. As a longtime resident on S.W. Harrington Avenue,the following are reasons not to approve Ordinance 2852 in addition to this not being a "friendly annexation: 1. This "cherry picking"was unanimously opposed in 2018, even by Joseph Buck himself, and I cannot tell if anything was finally formalized in writing opposing cherry picking, of which this annexation is. I was informed that on September 18, 2018, at a City Council meeting, a motion was made to disallow cherry stem annexations,which was unanimously approved by those in attendance, including then councilors Buck, O'Neil, Manz, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Goodman, and Mayor Studebaker. According to Attachment A, all of the homes surrounding 5950 S.W. Harrington Avenue are in Clackamas County, including the entire street of Harrington. Why should just one home on S.W. Harrington Avenue be given approval to annex into the City of Lake Oswego and then have the privilege of city fire, water, and police protection where the rest of us residents have to still rely on Clackamas County fire, water, and police protection. This particular cherry picking is a "privileged" cherry picking and should not be approved merely so Joseph Buck can be mayor if elected. It seems appears a rather selfish cherry picking want. 2. Having lived on S.W. Harrington for 39 years and knowing many neighbors, many living on Harrington Avenue are on fixed incomes, and three households have young families. If the owners on Harrington Avenue were required to connect to sewer,the costs would be beyond their means. A few owners have fully replaced septic tanks within the last year as well. If Joseph Buck needs to annex, what would stop him from wanting to connect to sewer because he wants to, and then the city eventually forces all of us to annex in and then we would all have sewer costs to be concerned with. 3. Metro Code 3.09.030 requires written notification of annexation to "surrounding properties ..." There are sixteen (16) homes on S.W. Harrington. 5950 is the petitioner,then two (2) homes are next to 5950 on S.W. Harrington. Thirteen (13) homes WERE NOT notified about this petition for annexation. Does the city or petitioner care about what these other thirteen homeowners want and need in their community now and in the future? I feel I was completely left out of the annexation process as were some of my other neighbors. This annexation could very well affect all of us in the future so this is not a "friendly annexation" in any way. 4. Reiterating from above, if annexation is approved,Joseph Buck will be privileged with City of Lake Oswego fire, water, and police protection, where others will not. Privilege is appropriate in some circumstances, but not here for just one person and his residence. AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-7/PAGE 1 OF 2 5. Roads: Per Attachment B, "The current pavement management index(PCI)for Mellon Avenue is 30, Seville Avenue is 22 and Harrington Avenue is 30. A PCI index between 70 and 85 is considered to be 'satisfactory'. The only roadway rehabilitation options for streets with this low of a PCI is complete reconstruction." This means that the city, at some point in the near future, would have to expend monies to pave part of S.W. Harrington in front of addresses 5950, 5982, and 6020, plus all of S.W. Mellon Avenue, and I assume Seville Avenue. Again,with annexation, privilege for paved streets to some neighbors and not to others. With the PCI so low for Mellon, Harrington, and Seville, I would expect the City of Lake Oswego to timely budget for paving on all three of these streets. Does the city have the budget to do these streets in a timely way? I would expect nothing less from the city to pave those streets. (Note-in Attachment B it states Mellon Avenue will automatically fall under the City's jurisdiction upon annexation.) 6. Storm Water: Does the city have the current and timely budget as it will be required to comply with the City standards for storm water management? It appears two storm water management systems may be need added. Is it worth the City's time and budget to provide this storm water management for one home? 7. Attachment B, page 12 says "Consider whether the boundary change would" "c. Eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services" Doesn't adding petitioner's one home onto City of Lake Oswego fire, water, and police protection, cause duplication of services as the address 5950 S.W. Harrington gets these City of Lake Oswego fire,water, and police protection, and the other thirteen (13) homes on S.W. Harrington DO NOT get City fire,water, and police protection. In addition,five (5) homes on Mellon Avenue also do not get City of Lake Oswego fire,water, and police protection. So, eighteen (18) homes surround 5950 S.W. Harrington have to rely as they had on these services provided by Clackamas County. Technically,this would mean 5950 gets City of Lake Oswego police service and the surrounding homes get Clackamas County Sheriff services. Is that fair services? Privilege for one home and fairness? 8. The notice posted on site on October 14, 2020 was posted facing Lake Forest Boulevard, a street not even in question for annexation. I saw the notice just yesterday(10/25/2020) after walking by the notice and subsequently told my neighbors who could and would be affected by this annexation in the future about the notice. Many on S.W. Harrington were unaware of this annexation in question and the posted notice was not in an appropriate place for the neighborhood to see to read so many were uninformed. I disapprove of this annexation (proposed Ordinance 2852)for the above reasons. It does absolutely nothing to improve this neighborhood,the streets of Harrington, Mellon, or Seville. It appears to only help the petitioner in a very political way. Let's put politics aside and do the right thing for our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention. Marlynn Rust 6145 S.W. Harrington Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 503-621-7689 AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-7/PAGE 2 OF 2 From: Nona Hoffinger<nhoffineer@email.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 28, 2020 3:18 PM To: Council Distribution <CouncilDistribution@ci.oswego.or.us> Subject: annexation AN 20-0005/ORDINANCE 2852 Council Distribution<CouncilDistributionnaci.osweeo.or.us>; CityRecorder<citvrecorder c@ci.osweuo.or.us>; Studebaker,Kent<kstudebakernaci.osweeo.or.us>; Wendland,John<iwendlandnaci.osweeo.or.us>; Nguyen,Daniel<dnguvennaci.osweuo.or.us>; tkohl offs ci.osweeo.or.u s: La Motte,John<ilamottenci.osweeo.or.us>; Manz,Jackie<imanznaci.osweuo.or.us>; O'Neill,Skip<so'neill&ci.osweuo.or.us> Subject: Opposition to Joseph Buck's Annexation request- File AN 20-0005/ Proposed Ordinance 2852 Dear City Council, Having reviewed this request for ONE property in my neighborhood to be annexed by the City of Lake Oswego,I am OPPOSED. As discussed in the email you received from my neighbor Marlyn Rusk at 6145 S.W.Harrington Avenue,Lake Oswego,Or.dated 10- 26-20. I agree with Mrs.Rusk. In the past, "cherry picking"was discussed and denied even by Mr.Buck. If the majority of my neighbors are willing to annex to the City of Lake Oswego I will reconsider my position. In the meantime I am OPPOSED to the annexation of Mr.Buck's property AN 20-0005/Ordinance 2852. Sincerely, Winona Hoffinger, nhoffinger@gmail.com Owner, 16470 S. W. Mellon Avenue Lake Oswego, Or. 97035 503-620-1852 AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-8/Page 1 OF 1 From: Rebbecca [mailto:idrrlm@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 9:16 AM To: Espe, Paul <pespe@ci.oswego.or.us>; CityRecorder<citvrecorder@ci.oswego.or.us> Subject: Annexation letter for 5950 Harrington Paul, please find the Lake Forest NA letter in response to 5950 Harrington. Please let me know if need anything further. Thank you. Rebbecca Maese Lake Forest NA co-chair AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-9/PAGE 1 OF 2 October 29, 2020 To: Lake Oswego City Council From: Lake Forest Neighborhood Association Board Re: Annexation of 5950 Harrington Avenue (21E07CD05700) Lake Forest NA would like to offer our support of this individual annexation into our neighborhood. There have already been seven individual annexations in the Lake Forest Neighborhood so far this year. We value the current system that allows owners to opt in as they feel prepared to bear the additional commitments of being in the City. Previously City leaders have proposed forced annexation of the neighborhood as a whole without neighborhood collaboration. We understand neighbors may have a negative response to ANY annexation because of the perception that may lead to a forced annexation situation. And we do also want to reiterate our opposition to any forest annexation to the city Thank you for the opportunity to engage in civic discourse about this annexation. Rebbecca Maese, Lake Forest Neighborhood Association co-chair Ginger McDowell, Lake Forest Neighborhood Association co-chair AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-9/PAGE 2 OF 2 From: ROSEMARY Henry [mailto:HENRYFAM04@msn.comj Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 12:08 PM To: Council Distribution <CouncilDistribution@ci.oswego.or.us>; CityRecorder <citvrecorder@ci.oswego.or.us> Subject: Annexation of AN20-0005 5950 Harrington Ave, Opposition To Lake Oswego City Council I 'am sending this email in OPPOSITION of the Annexation AN 20-0005, 5950 Harrington Ave. As with the emails sent to you by my fellow neighbors I too feel that this Annexation will be a hardship on many that live is this neighborhood, and would only benefit Joseph Buck's house. If this Annexation were to pass it would open Mellon Avenue to be a through street and would be open to more traffic on this road, were right now there is only traffic from the six homeowners that live on this street. Our other concern would be the high cost of having to connect to sewer, road maintenance, and the increase in taxes. My home on Mellon has been in our family for over 50 years; we have enjoyed the peace and quietness of the area and do not want to see it become part of The City of Lake Oswego. It needs to remain unincorporated Clackamas County. So I strongly Oppose this Annexation. Please consider the views and wishes of the Homeowners affected by this proposal. Sincerely Rosemary Dispenza Henry Owner of 16444 sw Mellon ave. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 AN 20-0005 EXHIBIT E-10/PAGE 1 OF 1 MILLER U.S.Bancorp Tower 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400 NAS H GRAHAM Portland,Oregon 97204 &DU N N- OFFICE503.224.5858 ATTORNEYS AT LAW FAX503.224.0155 Jeffrey G.Condit,P.C. jeff.condit@millernash.com 503.205.2305 direct line October 30, 2020 Lake Oswego City Council c/o Ann-Marie Simpson, City Recorder 38o A Avenue, Third Floor Post Office Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Subject: File AN 20-0005 (Proposed Ordinance 2852) Annexation Request, 595o Harrington Avenue Dear Mayor Studebaker and City Council: We represent Joseph Buck, the applicant for the above-noted application. Please accept this testimony into the record for the November 3, 2020, City Council hearing. In the main, we agree with the staff report: The annexation request complies with the applicable criteria and should be approved. The purpose of this letter is to address some of the comments in the record. We start with the elephant in the room: the fact that Mr. Buck is a candidate for mayor and running against councilors Kohlhoff and LaMotte. We agreed to a setover to November 3, 2020, in order to take this issue off the table to avoid distraction and potential conflicts of interest for the councilors. This matter is being heard on Election Day, so a decision will not affect the outcome of the election one way or the other. A property owner's reasons for requesting annexation are not a consideration under the applicable criteria, and so does not provide a basis for approval or denial. We are confident that the Council can make a fair decision on the merits based upon the evidence and testimony in the record, and that if a councilor believes that they cannot do so, that councilor will recuse themselves at the beginning of the hearing. In an October 23, 2020, letter, Michael E. Kohlhoff argues that notwithstanding the Council's failure to approve a policy disallowing so-called "cherry stem" annexations, the Council should apply general economic principles to deny it. At Portland,OR Seattle,WA Vancouver,WA Long Beach, CA MILLERNASH_COM 4822-5980-1808.2 AN 20-0011 EXHIBIT E-11/PAGE 1 OF 3 Lake Oswego City Council October 30, 2020 Page 2 the threshold, a land use decision has to be judged under the standards and criteria in effect at the time of the application. ORS 227.178(3)(a). As the staff report notes, the existing adopted policy favors approval of these elective annexation proposals. The Council cannot change policy on the fly to deny an application that otherwise complies with the applicable criteria. The City's comprehensive plan, its overriding land use policy document, commits the City to annexation of and providing services to this area. So the City is obligated to plan for and provide services to this property, regardless of when it is annexed. Nothing in the City code, however, requires the City to immediately expend any funds on public services to this property upon annexation. Provision of services will be analyzed as part of the City's various public facilities plans and improvements scheduled according to need and available funding,just like all other City public facilities. The staff report expresses some concern about police and fire services,but as long as the City maintains its mutual aid agreements with the abutting county and fire districts, annexation of this property will not impair service or cost the City additional funds. Again, these are costs that the City has already committed to bear; such costs don't become less expensive by putting them off. If the City wants to change this policy, then it needs to do so by ordinance and address compliance with the comprehensive plan, the Metro Regional Framework Plan, and Goals 14 (urbanization) and io (housing) and their attendant administrative rules. Attempting to do so by resolution or on a case-by-case basis is a potential violation of these planning regulations. A number of adjacent property owners have submitted comments in opposition, expressing concern about public facilities and that approval of a cherry-stem annexation is going result in annexation of their properties and/or otherwise increase their property taxes. We believe that the staff report adequately addresses the public facilities issues, so we briefly address the arguments regarding annexation and taxes. At the threshold, state statute expressly allows cherry-stem annexations. ORS 222.111 (allowing contiguity to be establish via public rights-of-way). Annexation must be approved by unanimous consent,by a majority of the property owners and electors, or by an election in the city and the territory to be annexed. See ORS 222.111 to 222.125. The only exceptions that can result in forced annexation are in the case of a health hazard (ORS 222.84o to 222.915) or so-called "island annexations" where the territory to be annexed is completely surrounded by territory within the city (ORS 222.750). Most of the testimony expresses concern about the possibility of island annexation. As a result of the Nike/City of Beaverton annexation war, however, the 4822-5980-1808.2 AN 20-0011 EXHIBIT E-11/PAGE 2 OF 3 Lake Oswego City Council October 30, 2020 Page 3 2007 legislature amended the island annexation statute to limit the use of cherry stems to create islands (to mix metaphors). Or Laws 2007, ch 654, § 1. ORS 222.75o(3)(b) now prohibits island annexation where "a portion of the corporate boundaries of the city that consists of only of a public right of way, other than Interstate 5, constitutes more than 25 percent of the perimeter of the territory." A look at the map in this case demonstrates that no adjacent property is put at immediate risk of island annexation, and the many additional properties would have to be annexed to get to the 25 percent-or-less right-of-way threshold for any nearby property. This is years, if not decades, away, and is more likely to be triggered by adjacent properties needing City sewer services than by approval of the annexation before you. The annexation will also not otherwise increase property values for taxation. Residential property is assessed based upon market value, which is established based upon sales of like properties. See generally ORS Chapter 308. Whether the adjacent right-of-way is within the city or the county does not affect this analysis. For these reasons, the neighbors' concerns, while completely understandable, are not supported by the record. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Council approve the annexation request based upon the findings in the staff report. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Jeffrey G. Condit, P.C. cc: Mr. David Powell, City Attorney Mr. Paul Espe, Associate Planner 4822-5980-1808.2 AN 20-0011 EXHIBIT E-11/PAGE 3 OF 3