PROPOSED FINDINGS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
Based on the staff study and the public hearing the City Council found:
1. The territory to be withdrawn is located generally on the west edge of the City on the south edge of SW Garden Home Road at its intersection with SW Oleson Road. The territory contains 4.45 acres.
2. The withdrawal fulfills a condition in a Metro order resolving an urban services boundary dispute between the City of Portland and the City of Beaverton.
In the late 90’s both Portland and Beaverton had adopted urban service boundaries as a part of their comprehensive plans. In this geographic location these boundaries overlapped. The cities were unable to work out their differences. Metro, in its planning coordination role under ORS 195.025, ultimately resolved the dispute. Metro Ordinance Number 97-665C Section 2.A, states: “Upon annexation of the area in the vicinity of SW Garden Home Road and SW Oleson Road by Beaverton consistent with the Urban Service Boundary, Portland shall consent to annexation by Beaverton of that area south of SW Garden Home Road and west of SW Oleson Road that is currently in Portland.” In response to that resolution Portland is now withdrawing this territory from the City of Portland and Beaverton is simultaneously processing an annexation of the territory.
At the time Metro’s ordinance was passed all the owners of properties in Portland south and west of the Garden Home Road-Oleson Road intersection favored the change of jurisdiction. Since then one property owner has expressed a desire to remain in Portland. Thus Tax Lot 401 (see non-crosshatched lot on west side of Oleson) will remain in Portland while the neighboring lots will be withdrawn and annexed to Beaverton.
3. The only criterion for deciding withdrawals within the statutes is the Council determination that the public interest will be served. The owners of the properties to be withdrawn favor the withdrawal and subsequent annexation to Beaverton. The City notes that withdrawal of this tiny area will have no significant impact on its financing or service provision capabilities. A public hearing was held on the action and no one from the City or the surrounding territory appeared to assert any public harm would be caused by the action.
ORS 268.347-354 directs Metro to establish criteria for boundary changes that must be used by all cities within the Metro boundary and Metro has done so through adoption of Section 3.09 of the Metro Code.
4. The Metro Code states that a final decision must include findings of fact and conclusions from those findings. The Code requires these findings and conclusions to address the following minimum criteria:
1. Consistency with directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065. [urban service provider agreements are agreements between various service providers about who will provide which services where. The agreements are mandated by ORS 195 but no adopted agreements affecting this area are currently in place. Annexation plans are timelines for annexations that may only be done after all required urban service provider agreements are in place and that must have been voted on by the City residents and the residents of the area to be annexed.]
2. Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreements, other than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a necessary party. The City-Washington County Urban Planning Area Agreement was examined and found not to contain any provisions directly applicable to withdrawal proposals.
3. Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans. The City’s comprehensive plan contains some provisions relating to annexation but is silent on the issue of withdrawal of territory from the City.
4. Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes contained in the Regional framework or any functional plan.
Metro has adopted two functional plans - the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan.
The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan requires cities and counties to amend their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to accord with elements in the Functional Plan. Included in these requirements are such items as minimum density standards, limitations on parking standards, mandated adoption of water quality standards and rules relating to Urban Growth Boundary expansion into Urban Reserve areas. None of these requirements relate directly to the issue of withdrawal from a city. The Regional Transportation Plan was examined and no specific criteria applicable to boundary changes were discovered.
The Regional Framework Plan was reviewed and found not to contain specific criteria applicable to boundary changes.
5. Whether the proposed change will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services. This property is already served with basic public services either directly through the City of Portland, via intergovernmental agreements or through direct service from other governments. Following the withdrawal from Portland and annexation to Beaverton, the same services will still be available either directly from Beaverton or via agreements with other governments.
Further, the Metro agreement states that the City of Portland should consider de-annexation to the City of Beaverton where any territory within Portland’s city limits is located in Washington County and if and when it is contiguous to the City limits of Beaverton. The agreement is silent on the issue of ownership and maintenance of right-of-way but it is clear that the current action meets the spirit and intent of Metro ORD 96-665C. The proposed de-annexation by Portland, and annexation by Beaverton of certain half-width right-of-way along SW Oleson Road fulfills a number of compelling objectives that will aid logical service provision as explained in the staff report.
6. The territory lies within the Urban Growth Boundary. As noted above the area is within the regional Urban Growth Boundary.
7. Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary change in question under state and local law. See the paragraph above relating to state statutory criteria.
The Metro Code also contains a second set of 10 factors which are to be considered where: 1) no ORS 195 agreements have been adopted, and 2) a necessary party is contesting the boundary change. Those 10 factors are not applicable at this time to this annexation because no necessary party has contested the proposed annexation.
CONCLUSIONS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
Based on the Findings, the City Council determined:
1. The owners of all the property proposed to be withdrawn favor the withdrawal. The withdrawal will not hinder the City’s ability to fund and deliver services to the remainder of its territory. No opposition testimony was received on this proposal. The City Council therefore concludes that the public interest is served by approval of the withdrawal.
2. The Metro Code at 3.09.050(d)(1) calls for consistency between the City’s decision and an agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065. There are no such agreements in this area. The City Council concludes no inconsistency exists.
3. The Metro Code at 3.09.050(d)(2) calls for consistency between the City’s decision and urban planning area agreements, or other agreements. The territory to be withdrawn is covered by the City-Washington County urban planning area agreement (UPAA). Nothing in that agreement speaks to the issue of withdrawal of territory from the City. Therefore the withdrawal is not inconsistent with the UPAA.
4. The Metro Code at 3.09.050(d)(3) calls for consistency between the City’s decision and any "directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facilities plans." The City’s plan does not contain any directly applicable criteria for withdrawals. The Council concludes therefore that no inconsistency exists.
5. Metro Code 3.09.050(d)(4) requires the City’s decision to be consistent with directly applicable standards or criteria in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plan. The Council has reviewed these plans and found no directly applicable criteria.
6. Metro Code 3.09.050(d)(5) states that another criterion to be addressed is "Whether the proposed change will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services." Adequate services are available now and will be available following approval of the withdrawal and the annexation to Beaverton. Therefore the proposed change does not interfere with the timely, orderly and economic provision of services.
7. The territory lies within the Urban Growth Boundary and is thus in compliance with Metro criteria 3.09.050(d)(6).
8. Metro criterion 3.09.050(d)(7) requires consideration of other state and local rules. The applicable state statute is addressed in # 1 above.