STAFF REPORT. For the Sept. 18, 2018 Board of Commissioners Hearing (The public hearing will begin no sooner than 10:00 a.m.)

Transcription

1 Sept. 10, 2018 To: From: Subject: Washington County Board of Commissioners Andy Back, Manager Planning and Development Services PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO An Ordinance Amending the Washington County City of Beaverton Urban Planning Area Agreement, an Element of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan STAFF REPORT For the Sept. 18, 2018 Board of Commissioners Hearing (The public hearing will begin no sooner than 10:00 a.m.) I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the public hearing for Ordinance No At the conclusion of the hearing, order engrossment of the ordinance to reflect the map changes described in this staff report and shown in Attachments A through D. Continue the hearing for the engrossed ordinance to Oct. 2 and 23, 2018 and direct staff to provide mailed notice of the changes consistent with requirements of Chapter X of the County Charter. II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission (PC) conducted a public hearing Aug. 15, 2018 for Ordinance No. 839 and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the ordinance to the Board of Commissioners (Board) with amendments. Attachments A through D show the proposed map amendments, and these are discussed further in the Analysis section of this report. Draft PC deliberations are shown in Attachment F. III. OVERVIEW Ordinance No. 839 proposes to amend the 1988 Washington County - Beaverton Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA), an element of the County Comprehensive Plan, to: Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N. First Ave., Suite 350, MS14, Hillsboro, OR phone: fax: lutplan@co.washington.or.us

2 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 839 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 2 of 9 Update the processes and policies for coordinating comprehensive planning and development review in the Urban Planning Area. Add policies and processes for coordinating concept planning in the Urban Reserves within Beaverton s area of interest. Add provisions to improve development coordination in Beaverton s Urban Planning Area near Beaverton s boundaries. Add policies regarding annexation, and a new map that shows areas where the County consents to annexations. Update how city zoning is determined after city annexation of properties. Update the Urban Planning Area map to reflect Beaverton s Urban Reserve Area, changes to the Urban Planning Area and annexations since the last update. Washington County and Beaverton staff worked together over the last several years to craft this update to the 1988 UPAA. A letter in support of the ordinance from the city of Beaverton is provided as Attachment E. Authorization for this ordinance was granted by the Board as part of the 2018 Long Range Planning Work Program, adopted March 6, III. BACKGROUND State law allows local governments to enter into agreements that outline and acknowledge the responsibilities for coordinating comprehensive planning activities within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Additionally, Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) requires that governmental plans related to land use be consistent with adopted County and city comprehensive plans as well as regional plans. In the late 70s and early 80s, Washington County began the process of developing individual UPAAs with cities within the UGB. The UPAAs described each city s site-specific urban planning area and policies for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in compliance with statewide planning goals and state laws. The adopted UPAAs between the County and the cities are included as elements of the County Comprehensive Plan. Over time, amendments have been made to some of the UPAAs in order to expand or modify a city s planning area boundary and provide updates to regional comprehensive planning policies. The original UPAA with Beaverton was enacted in 1979, the earliest of all the UPAAs. Updates were completed in 1983, 1986, and The current Washington County - Beaverton UPAA was adopted in 1988 and has not been amended since then. Over time, several other intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) or Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) have been established between the County and Beaverton to address a variety of planning related issues, including light rail station area planning, 2040 planning work, planning for Cedar Hills, concept planning for the Cooper Mountain area, and urban services planning.

3 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 839 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 3 of 9 Of particular interest, the 2013 Cooper Mountain IGA delegated planning authority to the city for areas within the UGB (North and South Cooper Mountain) as well as the South Cooper Mountain Urban Reserve. This is the type of authority typically included in a UPAA. Changes Since 1988 Much has changed since With regard to processes, there have been changes to state law and Metro requirements for public notice and mechanisms for sending notices now includes electronic mail. Other changes related to Beaverton s planning area include: Annexation of a number of properties into the city, including South Cooper Mountain. Limitations on annexation of certain properties adjacent to Beaverton s city limits (e.g., Nike, Tektronix and Columbia Sportswear properties). Adoption of the Hillsboro Urban Services Agreement (HUSA), establishing the western extent of the area expected to be served over the long term by Hillsboro. Preparation of prequalifying concept plans for future urban reserve areas, establishing conceptual land uses and expected governance for each urban reserve area. Adoption and expiration of the Beaverton Washington County Interim Urban Services Plan (USP) that established the area within which the two parties agreed the city was the appropriate service provider, and established areas where the County would not oppose annexations by the city of unincorporated areas. Validation and acknowledgment of the Urban and Rural Reserves by the Oregon legislature with House Bill (HB) 4078-A in 2014 and HB 2047 in This included approximately 1,237 acres of Urban Reserve land outside the UGB southwest of Beaverton (South Cooper Mountain Urban Reserve) and 329 acres to the north (Urban Reserve Area 8C). Title 11 of Metro s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP) identifies the planning responsibilities and guiding policies and requirements for the Urban Reserve areas as they transition from rural to urban uses. Completion of planning for Cooper Mountain, including concept and comprehensive planning for South Cooper Mountain, and concept planning for North Cooper Mountain and the Urban Reserve Area. These plans were acknowledged by the Board of Commissioners and adopted by Beaverton in Beaverton s request to Metro for expansion of the UGB to include the Cooper Mountain Urban Reserve Area. By the end of 2018, Metro Council will decide whether there is enough land within the Portland regional urban area to accommodate the next 20 years of growth and whether and where to expand the UGB. Ongoing Discussions Discussions about urban services planning and updating the UPAA have been underway between the two jurisdictions since before expiration of the Interim USP in These conversations stalled at various points for different reasons, often related to potential annexation of areas north of the city and whether there was County support for annexations within the remainder of the urban planning area.

4 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 839 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 4 of 9 Within the city, the UPAA is housed in the Land Use Element of its Comprehensive Plan. In , the city received a Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) grant to update its Land Use Element, and a requirement of that grant was to update the County-City UPAA. Targeted discussions involving the County Chief Administrative Office, County Land Use & Transportation Director, Beaverton Community Development Director and Long Range Planning staff from both jurisdictions began in late 2016 to come to agreement on changes to update the UPAA. Work included agreement on a set of shared principles, and establishment of an MOU outlining the process that would be followed to move toward agreement on an UPAA. Early in the process, letters were sent to adjacent jurisdictions and urban service providers informing them of the discussions underway, and the community participation organizations (CPOs) and members of the public were informed through the work program process and County website. Ordinance Notification Notice regarding proposed Ordinance No. 839 was mailed July 19, 2018, to parties on the General and Individual Notification Lists (Planning Commission, community participation organizations, cities, special service districts and interested parties). A display advertisement regarding the ordinance was published July 27, 2018, in The Oregonian newspaper. IV. ANALYSIS County and Beaverton staff worked closely to craft amendments to the UPAA to address the variety of factors that have changed since 1988 (see Background section). Because the UPAA was last updated prior to adoption of the Hillsboro Urban Services Plan, the Urban and Rural Reserve land designation process, Cooper Mountain planning, changes to annexation laws, and adoption and expiration of the Beaverton Interim Urban Services Plan, there are a number of aspects of the current UPAA that are out-of-date, or that don t address current realities. The UPAA describes how the two jurisdictions will coordinate on Comprehensive Planning and development applications within areas of interest. Since Beaverton s Urban Planning Area contains a number of urban unincorporated communities (e.g., Cedar Hill, Cedar Mill, Garden Home, Metzger), this is particularly important and potentially challenging. Policy and planning actions the city takes have the potential to affect the County, its residents and the provision of services. Conversely, actions taken by the County within the Urban Planning Area have the potential to affect the city, its residents and the provision of services. Coordination between the two jurisdictions is critical. Changes recommended to both the text of the agreement as well as the maps are discussed in detail below. Housekeeping changes to update processes and timelines Proposed updates to the UPAA include removing outdated provisions concerning notice and coordination requirements in the comprehensive planning process, and providing more flexibility

5 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 839 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 5 of 9 in the timing of amendments to the UPAA. The 1988 agreement didn t anticipate the use of to provide notification, and doesn t reflect state and Metro changes to notice timeframe. Additional coordination on future development projects (See UPAA Section II. B. 2.) The UPAA adds provisions for a new coordination process that would require applicants for development requiring notice and proposing new units to talk with the city prior to making the application to the County. This process is intended to address issues that have occurred where a developer has gone through the County s development review process only to find out at the end that stormwater (or other city provided) facilities were required from Beaverton, requiring annexation and city approvals. Since the urban unincorporated area and the city limits are so intertwined, development projects in the unincorporated area close to the city limits sometimes require city services (e.g., sewer, stormwater or water services) or otherwise may be appropriate for annexation. The proposed UPAA requires the city and County to develop a process for early coordination (such as before a pre-application conference or application submittal). The process would provide the city an opportunity to communicate with the potential applicant and give them information on service provision options or requirements, annexation availability, and applicable development rules in each jurisdiction. Both the specific land use decisions subject to this requirement and the area within which additional coordination will be required are yet to be established, except that the coordination area will be at least the area within one-quarter mile of the city boundary. Addition of concept planning for urban reserves (Section III.) A new Section III, Concept Planning for Urban Reserve Areas, outlines the planning responsibility for concept planning and includes a description of the general expectations of the concept plan to fully comply with UGMFP, Title 11. The County has an interest in assuring that the planning for the unincorporated area meets the expectations for road funding, access management, any potential jurisdictional transfer of roadways and appropriate serviceability to the area in compliance with Title 11. Thus, the 2018 UPAA amendment provides the opportunity to clearly identify and coordinate planning responsibilities and a process that will guide the concept planning expectations for the Urban Reserve area in a timely manner. Although planning for Cooper Mountain is complete, this section lays out the process and requirements for any potential future areas. Since reserves did not exist in 1988, the current UPAA does not identify concept planning responsibilities or likely urban service providers for coordinating concept planning in the Urban Reserve areas close to Beaverton (Cooper Mountain and Area 8C). Exhibit A (map) in the 2018 UPAA adds the Cooper Mountain Urban Reserve as a Beaverton Urban Reserve Planning Area (See Attachment C). Both Hillsboro and Beaverton have expressed an interest in ultimately governing certain other Urban Reserve lands that are not directly adjacent to either city (Urban Reserve 8C, northwest of Beaverton city limits). Since more than one city has an interest in assuming planning responsibility for this Urban Reserve area, and no agreement has been reached that would designate planning responsibility to one city over another, this area is described in both Hillsboro

6 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 839 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 6 of 9 and Beaverton s UPAA text and maps, as Urban Reserve - Planning Responsibility Undefined. This area is not included within the Urban Planning Area for any city at this time. Annexation policies (Section V.) The UPAA provides that the County supports rational, logical and orderly annexations by the CITY of areas within the CITY S Urban Planning Area. A new Exhibit B is proposed to be added to the UPAA, showing a new Annexation Area A, the area within which the County consents to annexations by the city of unincorporated properties. Annexation Area A is an area generally 500 feet from the outer extent of the city boundary, except where shown as greater (See Attachment D). This section in part reflects policies that were included in the now expired Interim USP, which identified an area where the County would not oppose annexations. The idea is that the city would not need the County s consent for annexations within this area, except for roads designated as County long-term jurisdiction in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). For areas outside Annexation Area A, the County will determine whether it consents to annexation on a case-by-case basis. In either case, annexations would still be required to go through the current processes laid out in state law. The map also reflects that certain areas are not annexable to a city for the foreseeable future, based on current state law. These include Nike, Tektronix and Columbia Sportswear properties. Updates to how city zoning is determined after city annexation (Section V. B.) A new approach is proposed to applying city land use designations and zoning as annexations occur, replacing the crosswalk approach found in the current UPAA. Language is retained regarding the conversion of County plan designations to city planning and zoning designations upon annexation being orderly, logical and based upon a mutually agreed upon plan. As well as additional language that, upon annexation, the city agrees to convert COUNTY plan and zoning designations to CITY plan and zoning designations which most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of the COUNTY designations. What is changing is that the conversions will no longer be made according to the table shown on Exhibit B, which listed city plan and zoning designations that existed in 1988 and the County equivalents. Instead, the city would maintain a crosswalk list separate from the UPAA for County designations where the city land use designations and zoning districts are clear. This list would allow Type I, nondiscretionary application of city land use designations and zoning. Following are a few examples of corresponding County and city land use districts/zones: Residential (Type I) County Land Use Designation City Zoning (and Land Use) R-5 (Residential 5 units/acre) R7 Urban Standard Density (NRSD) R-6 (Residential 6 units/acre) R5 Urban Standard Density (NRSD) R-9 (Residential 9 units/acre) R4 Urban Medium Density (NRMD) R-15 (Residential 15 units/acre) R2 Urban Medium Density (NRMD) R-24 (Residential 24 units/acre) R1 Urban High Density (NRHD)

7 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 839 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 7 of 9 If a property wanted to apply for a different land use designation or zoning district than what is provided in the crosswalk that change would occur after the city annexation and Type I zoning process was complete. For other situations where the County land use designation does not have an obvious city corollary, the city would use discretion to determine the city land use designation and zoning district corresponding as closely as possible to the County designation. This is likely to be based on land use and density factors. County designations that would likely be processed using a Type III discretionary process for application of city land use designations and zoning under the current city and County plans/codes include: OC Office Commercial NC Neighborhood Commercial GC General Commercial IND Industrial INST Institutional This change is being made in part because city and County land use districts have changed quite a bit since 1988 and often don t have a comparable district in the other jurisdiction. This change allows flexibility while still ensuring appropriate process and consideration of community interests and past planning. Deletion of outdated information A number of Special Policies are deleted from the agreement because they are either addressed elsewhere in the agreement, or are outdated. For example, special policy H contains stipulations regarding connection of Murray Boulevard from Old Scholls Ferry Road to the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street. Urban Planning Area Exhibit A contains the area that is agreed upon as Beaverton s Urban Planning Area. This is the area where both the city and the County maintain an interest in comprehensive planning and development. Ultimately, it is the area that could, over time, become part of the city. Updated Exhibit A of the 2018 UPAA started with the 1988 UPAA map and modified it to: Reflect annexations and UGB additions (including Cooper Mountain) since 1988 Remove areas annexed to the city of Hillsboro Add Urban Reserve Planning Areas that are Beaverton s to plan, and those where planning responsibility is yet to be determined North Bethany and Bonny Slope West were not within the UGB in 1988 and were not included on the UPAA map at that time. Since Beaverton s boundaries are still quite distant from these two areas, and further discussions are needed on their ultimate governance, they are not included in Beaverton s (or any city s) UPAA at this time. Staff notes there is no requirement for all unincorporated areas to be within a city s UPAA. There are several issues, including ultimate governance of North Bethany and Bonny Slope West, that remain unresolved. These are anticipated to be part of future discussions between the two jurisdictions once the current update of the UPAA is adopted, although no timeframe for these discussions has been established.

8 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 839 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 8 of 9 Engrossment Needed Subsequent to filing the ordinance, city of Hillsboro staff pointed out several mapping inconsistencies in Exhibits A and B of the draft UPAA. Additionally, city of Portland staff has pointed out that a new IGA between Portland and Beaverton regarding the Urban Services Boundary between the two cities was recently adopted. It identifies some areas along the eastern boundary of Beaverton that will ultimately be within Portland s jurisdiction. Based on this, Portland has requested some changes to the UPAA map boundaries as well. Based on these discussions, and confirmation with Beaverton, staff recommends engrossment of the ordinance to update the two maps, as follows: 1. Delete Bendemeer Urban Reserve area (north and west of the city) from Exhibit A and B, since this is assigned as an Urban Reserve Planning Area (URPA) in Hillsboro s UPAA. 2. Delete two areas on the western edge of the Beaverton UPAA map, because these are part of the Hillsboro 2004 USA (to which Beaverton is a party) and the areas are within Urban Planning Area B of the Hillsboro UPAA. These boundaries are also reflected in the Beaverton s Urban Service and Urban Growth Boundaries mapping. 3. Modify the eastern boundary of the Urban Planning Area on Exhibits A and B to remove several small areas that will ultimately be within Portland s jurisdiction. The areas being deleted are shown in Attachments A and B, and the two revised maps (Exhibits A and B of the UPAA) are included as Attachments C and D of this staff report. Planning Commission consideration At the Aug. 15 PC hearing, Mary Manseau, a representative of CPO 7, expressed the desire for better communication between the city and CPOs for parcels within the city, and had specific concerns regarding CPO notification of development applications within the city and within or adjacent to the CPO. She also stated that the CPO is interested in participating in any further discussions about the future of the North Bethany area and its eventual inclusion in an UPAA. Ms. Manseau submitted a letter dated Aug. 14 from CPO 7 outlining the issues she spoke of during her oral testimony (Attachment E). Brian Martin, Long Range Planning Manager in the Community Development Department at the city of Beaverton, testified in support of the UPAA and noted the Aug. 8, 2018 letter of support submitted by Mayor Doyle (Attachment E). Mr. Martin indicated the city has already started to notify CPOs of development proposals within or near CPO boundaries. The city will initiate development code changes this fall to codify notice to CPOs. PC discussion included questions about the CPOs requests for notification of city development applications and inclusion in any UPAA discussions regarding North Bethany. There was some interest in ensuring this coordination, however PC members did not believe this should hold up the UPAA. There were also questions about why North Bethany and Bonny Slope West were not included in Beaverton s Urban Planning Area. The PC voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 839 with amendments to reflect the map changes shown in Attachments A through D.

9 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 839 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 9 of 9 Staff Response: Staff believes the appropriate avenue for ensuring CPO notification of city development applications is through inclusion of this requirement in the city s development code. Since Beaverton staff has indicated this change is underway, staff believes this issue is being adequately addressed. Regarding CPO participation in future discussions about including North Bethany in an UPAA, staff believes this is a valid request and will consider how to structure such engagement when these discussions resume. Summary of Proposed Changes Ordinance No. 839 proposes to amend the Washington County City of Beaverton Urban Planning Area Agreement, an Element of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan. Key provisions: Makes minor changes to the processes and policies for coordinating comprehensive planning in the Urban Planning Area. Adds a new section on Concept Planning for Urban Reserve Areas. Replaces the Urban Planning Area map ( Exhibit A ) of the 1988 UPAA with a new map reflecting the addition of the Urban Reserve Planning Area, changes to the Urban Planning Area and recent city annexations. Adds provisions to improve development coordination in Beaverton s Urban Planning Area near Beaverton s boundaries. Adds policies regarding annexation, and a new map ( Exhibit B ) that shows areas where the County consents to annexations. Updates how city zoning is determined after city annexation of properties. Makes minor text changes throughout the document to provide consistency and clarity. Proposed Engrossment No text amendments are proposed, however, Exhibits A and B in the originally filed ordinance will be replaced with two revised maps that are included as Attachments C and D to this staff report. The maps reflect deletion of areas subject to other intergovernmental agreements from the Urban Planning Area, as discussed on Page 8. List of Attachments Attachment A: Informational map showing areas on the western edge of Beaverton s Urban Planning Area to be removed from Beaverton UPAA exhibits. Attachment B: Informational map showing areas on the eastern edge of Beaverton s Urban Planning Area to be removed from Beaverton UPAA exhibits. Attachment C: Proposed amendment - Revised Exhibit A to the UPAA Attachment D: Proposed amendment - Revised Exhibit B to the UPAA Attachment E: Public testimony received to date Attachment F: Draft Aug. 15, 2018 PC deliberations for Ordinance No. 839 S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2018 Ord\839_Beaverton_UPAA\Staff_Reports_PPTs\BCC\091818\839_BOC_SR_ docx

10 Attachment A Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 839 Sept. 18, 2018

11 Attachment B Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 839 Sept. 18, 2018

12 Attachment C REVISED Proposed Amendments to Ordinance No. 839 Exhibit 1 Sept. 18, 2018

13 Attachment D REVISED Proposed Amendments to Ordinance No. 839 Exhibit 1 Sept. 18, 2018

14 Attachment E

15 Attachment E

16 Attachment E

17 Attachment F WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2018 Proposed Ordinance No An ordinance amending the Washington County City of Beaverton Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA), an element of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan Draft Deliberations Planning Commission (PC) members present: Jeff Petrillo, Ed Bartholemy, Tegan Enloe, Deborah Lockwood, Anthony Mills, and Eric Urstadt. PC members absent: A. Richard Vial, Ian Beaty, and Eric Urstadt. Staff present: Andy Back, Theresa Cherniak, Kim Armstrong, Ann Kelley, Steve Kelley, Suzanne Savin and Susan Aguilar, Long Range Planning (LRP); Jacquilyn Saito-Moore, County Counsel. Summary a. Ordinance No. 839: Washington County Beaverton UPAA Theresa Cherniak, principal planner from the Community Planning section of LRP provided the PC with a Power Point presentation containing UPAA background history. Staff shared that Beaverton was the first UPAA, which was adopted in 1979, and that it has been updated several times since then. The last update was in The staff presentation also included information regarding: changes that have occurred since the last update in 1988, key provisions of the ordinance, proposed map updates, and recommendations. Recommendation Conduct the public hearing. Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 839 to the Board of Commissioners (Board). PC comments: The PC had questions about the following: Why the UPAA has not been updated in 30 years. Whether other counties have UPAAs. Why North Bethany and Bonny Slope West are not included in Beaverton s urban planning area, and the timeframe for addressing these areas in a UPAA. Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N. First Ave Suite 350 MS14 Hillsboro, OR Phone: Fax: lutplan@co.washington.or.us

18 Written testimony received in Ordinance No. 839 A letter submitted on August 15, 2018 by Mary Manseau for CPO7 A letter submitted on August 7, 2018 from the city of Beaverton Planning Commission Deliberations August 15, 2018 Page 2 of 2 Verbal testimony received on Ordinance No. 839 Mary Manseau, Community Participation Organization #7 (CPO 7), 4804 Bethany Blvd, Suite I-2, Portland, OR - Ms. Manseau as a member of CPO 7 requested that the UPAA be changed to require the city to notify CPO 7 of all development proposals impacting the CPO. She indicated that Statewide Planning Goal 1 requires citizen involvement in all phases of the land use process. Ms. Manseau stated that CPO 7 wants to participate in identifying which jurisdiction should have planning authority for the properties within CPO 7 that are not currently in a UPAA, specifically N. Bethany, and the Park and Peterkort properties. CPO 7 wants to be an active participant in determining the future governance of these areas. CPO 7 requested the UPAA include a requirement that they be notified and actively engaged if the Beaverton seeks planning authority for any of these areas within CPO 7. Brian Martin, long-range planning manager for the city of Beaverton, SW Millikan Way, Beaverton, OR - Mr. Martin indicated the city of Beaverton supported the ordinance. He shared that the ordinance contains important changes that will strengthen the relationship between Beaverton and the County to provide better public service. He shared that Beaverton staff has already started to notify CPOs of city development proposals within or adjacent to CPO boundaries. Final Vote Commissioner Wellner moved to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 839 to the Board with proposed engrossments. Commissioner Bartholemy seconded the motion. Vote: 6 0. Motion passed. Commissioner Vote Bartholemy Beaty Enloe Lockwood Mills Petrillo Urstadt Vial Wellner End of Deliberations. Yes Absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Absent Absent Yes

19 PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO. 839 Individual and General Notice July 19, 2018 The Washington County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners (Board) will soon consider proposed Ordinance No Listed below is a description of the ordinance, hearing dates and other relevant information. If you have any questions about the ordinance, or if you would like additional information, please contact Long Range Planning at lutplan@co.washington.or.us or ORDINANCE PURPOSE AND SUMMARY: Ordinance No. 839 would amend the 1988 Washington County-Beaverton Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA), an element of the County Comprehensive Plan. The agreement addresses coordination on comprehensive planning, annexations and development, and is required to meet statewide planning goals and requirements. Proposed updates include adding policies and processes for coordinating concept planning in Beaverton s identified Urban Reserve Planning Area and minor changes to the policies and processes for comprehensive planning in the Urban Planning Area. The map of the planning area is revised to reflect Beaverton s Urban Reserve Planning Area, changes to the Urban Planning Area and annexations since the last update. Who is Affected Owners of land in and around the area proposed in the Beaverton Urban Planning Area and Urban Reserve Area boundary. What Land is Affected Properties in and around the proposed Beaverton Urban Planning Area and Urban Reserve Planning Area boundary. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION/LOCATION: Hearings are in the auditorium of the Charles D. Cameron Public Services Building, 155 N. First Ave., Hillsboro Planning Commission Board of Commissioners 6:30 p.m. 10 a.m. Aug. 15, 2018 Sept. 18, 2018 At its Sept. 18, 2018 public hearing, the Board may choose to adopt the ordinance, make changes to it, continue the hearing to a future date, or reject the ordinance. If adopted Sept. 18, it would become effective Oct. 18, Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N. First Ave., Suite 350, MS14, Hillsboro, OR phone: fax: lutplan@co.washington.or.us

20 Individual/General Notice Proposed Ordinance No. 839 Page 2 of 2 KEY PROVISIONS: Makes minor changes to the processes and policies for coordinating comprehensive planning in the Urban Planning Area. Adds a new section on Concept Planning for Urban Reserve Areas. Replaces the Urban Planning Area map ( Exhibit A ) of the 1988 UPAA with a new map reflecting the addition of the Urban Reserve Planning Area, changes to the Urban Planning Area and recent city annexations. Adds provisions to improve development coordination in Beaverton s Urban Planning Area near Beaverton s boundaries. Adds policies regarding annexation, and a new map ( Exhibit B ) that shows areas where the County consents to annexations. Updates how city zoning is determined after city annexation of properties. Makes minor text changes throughout the document to provide consistency and clarity. AFFECTED LAND USE PLANNING DOCUMENTS: o Washington County Beaverton Urban Planning Area Agreement HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Submit oral or written testimony to the Planning Commission and/or the Board at one of the public hearings. Written testimony, including , may be sent to the Planning Commission or Board in advance of the public hearings at the address shown on the front of this notice. Include the author s name and address with any public testimony. Staff Contact Theresa Cherniak, Principal Planner, Theresa_cherniak@co.washington.or.us, The ordinance is available for review at the following locations: Department of Land Use & Transportation o Physical address through July 26, 2018: Public Services Building, 155 N. First Ave., Hillsboro Offices will be closed for moving July 27-Aug. 1 o Physical address beginning Aug. 2, 2018: Adams Crossing, 161 NW Adams Ave., Hillsboro Cedar Mill Community Library and Tigard Public Library Community Participation Organizations (CPOs), call S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2018 Ord\839_Beaverton_UPAA\Notices_MailingLabels_Affidavits\General Notice\839_General_Notice_ dotx.docx

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44