PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE FOR THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE FOR THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HILLSBORO CIVIC CENTER - SHIRLEY HUFFMAN AUDITORIUM 150 EAST MAIN STREET, HILLSBORO, OR WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2018 PUBLIC MEETING 6:30 PM Prior to scheduled public hearing items, the Planning Commission schedules time to receive briefings from county staff as work session items. These briefings provide the Planning Commission an opportunity to conduct informal communications with each other, review the agenda, and identify questions they may ask before taking action on the agenda items during the public meeting. No public testimony is taken on work session items. Following work session briefings, the Planning Commission considers items published in their agenda, including scheduled public hearing items and consideration of minutes. The public is welcome to speak during the public hearing portions of the meeting. The public may also speak on any item not on the agenda during the Oral Communications section of the agenda. Upon request, the county will endeavor to arrange provision of the following services: Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and Qualified bilingual interpreters Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. If you need a sign language interpreter, assistive listening device, or a language interpreter, please call (or for Telecommunications Relay Service) by 5:00 p.m. on the Monday preceding the meeting date.

2 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HILLSBORO CIVIC CENTER SHIRLEY HUFFMAN AUDITORIUM (NEW TEMPORARY LOCATION) The Planning Commission welcomes your attendance at the Public Meeting. If you wish to speak on a public hearing agenda item or during Oral Communications, please feel free to do so. Time is generally limited to five minutes for individuals and 10 minutes for an authorized representative of a Citizen Participation Organization (CPO). The Chair may adjust the actual time limits. However, in fairness to others, we respectfully ask your cooperation on the following: Please follow sign-in procedures located on the table by the entrance to the auditorium. When your name is announced, please be seated at the table in front and state your name and home or business address for the record. Groups or organizations wishing to make a presentation are asked to designate one spokesperson in the interest of time and to avoid repetition. When more than one citizen is heard on any matter, please avoid repetition in your comments. Careful attention to the previous speakers remarks will be helpful in this regard. If you plan to present written testimony at the hearing, please bring 15 copies for distribution to Commission members and staff. PUBLIC MEETING DATES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSIONS 8:30 a.m. 1st and 3rd Tuesdays 2:00 p.m. 4th Tuesday PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS 1:30 p.m. 1st Wednesday 6:30 p.m. 3rd Wednesday BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS 10 a.m. 1st and 3rd Tuesdays 6:30 p.m. 4th Tuesday Note: Occasionally it may be necessary to cancel or add a meeting date.

3 PUBLIC MEETINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HILLSBORO CIVIC CENTER SHIRLEY HUFFMAN AUDITORIUM WEDNESDAY JULY 18, :30 PM AGENDA CHAIR: VICE-CHAIR: COMMISSIONERS: A. RICHARD VIAL JEFF PETRILLO ED BARTHOLEMY, IAN BEATY, TEGAN ENLOE, DEBORAH LOCKWOOD, ANTHONY MILLS, ERIC URSTADT, AND MATT WELLNER PUBLIC MEETING (SHIRLEY HUFFMAN AUDITORIUM) 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 4. WORK SESSION a. Ordinance No. 838 North Bethany Urban Design Plan 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Limited to items not on the agenda) 6. PUBLIC HEARING a. Ordinance No. 832 Fair Housing and Group Care updates (continued from June 27) An ordinance amending the Community Development Code, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, relating to Fair Housing and Group Care updates. b. Ordinance No. 834 Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update An ordinance updating the TSP to conform to certain city comprehensive plans and amending the Community Development Code, elements of the Comprehensive Plan. c. Ordinance No. 835 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) An ordinance amending the Community Development Code, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, to implement Legislative changes related to housing. 7. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 8. ADJOURN Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N. First Ave., Suite 350, MS14 Hillsboro, OR Phone: Fax:

4 July 11, 2018 To: From: Subject: Washington County Planning Commission Andy Back, Manager Planning and Development Services PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code, an Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Relating to Fair Housing and Group Care Updates STAFF REPORT For the July 18, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing (The public hearing will begin no sooner than 6:30 p.m.) I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the public hearing; recommend engrossment of Ordinance No. 832 to the Board of Commissioners (Board) to add language exempting the proposed Type II Temporary Use for temporary shelter operations from the public facilities and services standards in Article V, as described in this staff report. No other changes are recommended at this time. II. OVERVIEW Ordinance No. 832 proposes amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) to bring the code into better compliance with federal fair housing law and state law related to housing for persons who are members of protected classes, particularly as it relates to residential group care and temporary homeless shelters. The Planning Commission (PC) held its first public hearing for this ordinance June 27, 2018 and continued the hearing to July 18, requesting that staff provide additional information on proposed CDC changes. This report outlines questions raised at the hearing, staff analysis, and recommendations. Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N. First Ave., Suite 350, MS 14, Hillsboro, OR phone: fax: lutplan@co.washington.or.us

5 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 832 July 11, 2018 Page 2 of 7 III. BACKGROUND At the June 28 hearing Planning Commissioners raised questions regarding the differences between proposed changes to land use designations that would allow Resident Care Facilities and Secure Housing Facilities compared to land use designations that allow Retirement Housing Communities. The PC also expressed a desire to consider a simpler approval process and longer period of use for temporary shelter operations. These issues are discussed in the Analysis section of this report. Background regarding fair housing is included in the June 27 staff report. IV. ANALYSIS The following section provides information and recommendations regarding questions raised for consideration at the June 27 PC hearing. A. Retirement Housing Communities The PC questioned whether Retirement Housing Communities (CDC ) should be allowed in the same land use districts and through the same procedure type as Resident Care Facilities. The PC suggested that this type of residential group care should be treated equally in the CDC, and that excluding Retirement Housing Communities from land use districts that allow Resident Care Facilities could be a fair housing concern. Staff Response Retirement Housing Community regulations were updated last year through Ordinance No The PC considered the ordinance and recommended approval to the Board, and the Board adopted the ordinance September 5, Ordinance No. 823 addressed fair housing concerns related to retirement housing communities, expanded the land use districts that allow retirement housing communities, and allowed more flexibility in community design of senior housing. Retirement Housing Community (Section ) is the only type of Group Care that explicitly allows, on one development site, both independent living (in attached or detached housing units) and assisted living options for seniors who require increasing levels of care and assistance as they age. Retirement Housing Communities may also include a licensed care nursing facility. Ordinance No. 823 expanded the land use districts that allow Retirement Housing Communities - from only one district to all residential districts except the lowest density (R-5 and R-6), as well as Community Business District (CBD) and Institutional (INST). The ordinance also revised/updated the retirement housing community standards. The ordinance recognized that the intensity of the land use and the scale of the development would be such that it would be incompatible with lower density areas (R-5 and R-6 districts). As an example, Touchmark in the West Hills is a 12-acre community with two large lodge buildings containing 264 dwelling units, with independent living, assisted living, and memory care services. The community also includes a clubhouse, a fitness

6 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 832 July 11, 2018 Page 3 of 7 club, several restaurant-style dining facilities, a chapel, and a library. Retirement Housing Communities are allowed through a Type III process in R-9 through R-25+ and as a Type II in most Transit Oriented districts and residential districts in the North Bethany subarea. Ordinance No. 832, currently under consideration, proposes further amendments to the CDC to bring the code into better compliance with federal fair housing law and state law related to housing for persons who are members of protected classes. Residential group care and temporary homeless shelters are two regulated residential uses that typically serve members of protected classes (especially people with disabilities). The current ordinance proposes one amendment to Retirement Housing Communities regulations to add them as an allowed use in Transit Oriented: Retail Commercial (TO:RC) and Transit Oriented: Business (TO:BUS). These transit-oriented areas allow higher intensity/density uses, allow attached housing on upper floors, and have good access to transit. These were inadvertently left out of Ordinance No. 823 last year. Table 1, attached to this staff report and also provided in the materials for the June 27 meeting, contains the full list of land use districts where various types of housing are currently allowed, and the districts where secure housing facilities, resident care facilities, and retirement housing communities are proposed in Ordinance No Fair housing law and Fair Housing Council of Oregon best practice recommendations do not specify that all types of housing must be regulated exactly the same way. Rather, they establish that similar types of housing must be regulated and processed in similar ways, and that additional requirements and processes must be based on objective, fact-based criteria rather than characteristics of residents/potential residents of those dwellings. Resident Care Facilities, as proposed in Ordinance No. 832, include licensed establishments that provide housing and 24-hour access to care and services. They can take a variety of forms, from buildings that look very similar to detached single-family homes, to small complexes, to larger multifamily developments with a variety of on-site care and services. While it is difficult to generalize about the level of impact Resident Care Facilities may have, this type of residential group care does not allow multiple housing types and service options on one site. In order to mitigate the potential impact of 24-hour care and service provision in Resident Care Facilities, the filed ordinance would allow this use through a Type III review process in lower density residential districts (R- 5, R-6, R-6 NB, R-9 and R-9 NB). This would allow Resident Care Facilities to be developed in lower density areas, while providing opportunity for more consideration for potential community impacts and a public hearing process. Retirement Housing Communities, on the other hand, can include a wide variety of sizes and housing types, explicitly allowing multiple housing types and service options on one site. The allowed variety and intensity of housing types (attached and/or detached housing units, assisted living in multifamily buildings, licensed care nursing facility, supportive services) is likely to result in greater community impacts than single-family detached or attached units or a Resident Care Facility. Retirement Housing Communities

7 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 832 July 11, 2018 Page 4 of 7 are a more intensive land use that would likely be out of scale with low density residential areas and staff considers them inappropriate in the R-5 and R-6 land use districts. Should a housing developer wish to establish independent living for residents 55 and older in an R-5 or R-6 land use district, this could potentially be allowed as a detached or attached housing development. Similarly, supportive housing or a nursing home for residents 55 and older could be allowed as a Resident Care Facility. Developments that include multiple housing options and services are classified as Retirement Housing Communities, and would be allowed in land use districts R-9 and higher. Staff Recommendation Based on the discussion above, staff does not recommend amending the land use districts or procedure type to allow Retirement Housing Communities in the R-5 and R-6 districts. B. Temporary Shelter Operations The PC questioned whether the proposed Type II Temporary Use for temporary shelter operations allows for a sufficient length of time for operation. The PC suggested several options, including allowing continuous shelter operations or allowing temporary shelters through a Type I process. The PC also discussed the need for longer-term shelter options. Staff Response As filed, Ordinance No. 832 provides for a temporary homeless shelter to operate in a habitable institutional building owned or operated by a nonprofit, religious institution, school district or parks or community services provider through a Type II temporary use permit. This temporary use would be allowed to operate for up to 12 weeks per year for two years, with the ability to renew the temporary use permit every two years. The 12 week temporary use period is consistent with existing CDC standards. The CDC defines temporary use as one of an impermanent nature, or one used for a limited time. Most temporary uses permitted through the CDC are allowed for 90 days or less in one calendar year, when the temporary use is not related to construction or a health hardship. This Type II Temporary Use would require that the habitable institutional building address health and safety requirements and provide access to necessary amenities. It would also provide public notice and the opportunity for public comment, with a simpler application process and lower cost for the applicant than a regular Type II development application. The LUT fee schedule is adopted annually, and a separate application and/or renewal fee for this temporary use could be adopted in Current fees for a Type II Temporary Use are about $1,600 (versus over $4,000 for a Type II development review). Renewals for Type II Temporary Use permits are currently about $500. In addition, temporary use applications are not subject to systems development charges (SDCs), including Transportation Development Tax (TDT) charges.

8 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 832 July 11, 2018 Page 5 of 7 The Type II Temporary Use process for temporary shelter operations was included in Ordinance No. 832 in response to requests from religious institutions who desire a less costly and intensive application process for temporary shelters operating for short time periods. Specifically, inquiries were received from places of worship interested in participating in the Family Promise program. Staff contacted the Executive Director of the Family Promise program, Annie Heart, to request additional information about this program. Ms. Heart provided the following details, and her comments are included as Attachment B. The Family Promise Shelter program is based on families staying at a temporary shelter location overnight (6 p.m. to 7 a.m.), for one week per overnight host location. Participating families are hosted at a day shelter, which includes services for basic needs (shower, laundry, food storage, cooking meals, case management and referrals) during the day. Family Promise hosts three families at a time, so each participating temporary shelter location will have host duties about four weeks per year. Households in the Family Bridge program may remain in participating shelters for up to six weeks altogether, and may be hosted only once at each shelter location per year. Ms. Heart noted that the temporary program can help keep families engaged with services and motivated to find permanent housing. This program is not intended to provide ongoing housing in homeless shelters. Ms. Heart commented that more permanent housing with services is likely to provide households with more stability than longer stays in temporary homeless shelters. Allowing temporary homeless shelter operations through a Type I procedure would reduce the application cost, but it would not allow for review and imposition of conditions to address potential impacts. Additionally, allowing temporary homeless shelters through a Type I procedure could add a new use to certain properties without providing for public notice or comment. Requiring a Type II procedure for temporary homeless shelters is recommended in order to allow for review of the specific proposal and placement of conditions on the operation if appropriate. Additionally, this process allows for feedback and comment regarding potential community impacts of temporary shelters, in compliance with Washington County s community engagement policies. There is an existing avenue for organizations desiring to operate a permanent homeless shelter to obtain approval through a regular Type II development process. While not perfect, such a use would be considered under current regulations as a Day Care Facility (Group Care ) and would be allowed in the locations where such facilities are allowed and under the same regulations. The scope of Ordinance No. 832 as directed by the Board of Commissioners did not include ongoing or permanent shelter operations, and such regulations are beyond the scope of this ordinance as drafted. As proposed, Ordinance No. 832 would allow interested organizations to participate in Family Promise under the current program structure, or participate in similar temporary shelter operations.

9 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 832 July 11, 2018 Page 6 of 7 The 2018 Long Range Planning Work Program included Tier 2 Task 2.5: Homeless Shelter/Services/Camping Regulations. Consideration of strategies to reduce barriers to permanent shelter operations and allow a wider range of services to meet the needs of homeless households would fall under that task. This work would likely include establishing a more appropriate category of use and standards for homeless shelters. Tier 2 tasks are those where there are insufficient staff resources or priority to address at this time. Because most of Long Range Planning s resources are devoted to Tier 1 tasks, few Tier 2 tasks are able to be addressed during the work plan year. During research for this staff report, staff discovered an issue with the filed ordinance related to compliance with CDC Article V - Public Facilities and Services. This ordinance is intended to remove barriers for temporary homeless shelter operations by creating a simpler application process. Type II development applications are typically subject to the requirements of CDC Article V, Public Facilities and Services. Article V includes standards for facilities and services including sewer, water, fire protection, drainage, roads, etc. Meeting these standards would typically include submittal of Service Provider Letters and required improvements to bring streets and sidewalks to current County standards. This might be appropriate for a permanent use, however, this proposal is to allow shelter operation on a limited and temporary basis. Article V does allow for an exemption from the requirements for a change of occupancy, and staff proposes that allowing operation of a temporary homeless shelter in a habitable institutional building operated by a nonprofit, religious institution, school district or parks or community services provider would be similar to a change of occupancy. As such, staff recommends the following engrossment of Ordinance No. 832 to exempt temporary homeless shelters from Article V Temporary Use A temporary use is one of an impermanent nature, or one used for a limited time. *** Type II: *** *** B. The use of a habitable institutional building that is not typically used as a residence as temporary shelter for homeless persons and/or households. For the purposes of this section, a habitable institutional building may include, but is not limited to, a building such as a school, a place of worship, or a recreational or community center, owned and/or operated by a nonprofit organization, a religious institution, a school district, or a parks or community services provider. For the purposes of Article V, temporary homeless shelters are similar to a change of occupancy, and are therefore exempt.

10 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 832 July 11, 2018 Page 7 of 7 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the addition of an exemption from the standards in Article V, as shown above. Should the PC wish to engage in a more in-depth discussion of homeless shelters and related issues, the PC may wish to recommend that the Board elevate Task 2.5 Homeless Shelter/Services/Camping Regulations to Tier 1 in the 2019 Work Program. List of Attachments Attachment A: Table 1 - Comparison of Allowed Uses by Land Use District (Residential and Group Care) Attachment B: July 3, 2018 correspondence with Family Promise S:\2018 Ord\832_Fair_Housing\Staff_Reports_PPTs\PC071818\832_PC_SR_ docx

11 Attachment A Table 1. Comparision of Allowed Uses by Land Use District (Residential and Group Care) Convalescent Homes CURRENT USES IN SECTION GROUP CARE Home for Aged Detention Facility (Retirement Home) Resident Care Facility Retirement Housing Community Secure Housing Facility Resident Care Facility Land Use Districts Detached Attached RESIDENTIAL R 5 I III III III III III III III R 6 I II III III III III III III R 9 I II III III III III III III III III R 15 I II III III III III III III II III R 24 I or II II III III III III III III II III R 25+ I or II II III III III III III III II III TO: R9 12 II II/N II II II III II II TO: R12 18 II II/N II II II III II II TO: R18 24 II II* II II II III II II TO: R24 40 II* II II II or III III II II or III TO: R40 80 II* II II II III II II TO: R II* II II II III II II R 6 NB I or II II III III R 9 NB I or II II II II II II II III III II R 15 NB II III II III II II III II II R 24 NB II III II III II II III II II R 25+ NB II III II III II II III II II COMMERCIAL NC II* OC CBD II* II II II II II II II II GC NCC NB II* II* NCMU NB II* II* TO: RC II* II II II* II* II* TO:BUS II* II II II* II* II* INSTITUTION INST III III III III III III III III INST NB III III III INDUSTRIAL & EMPLOYMENT IND TO: EMP * with certain limitations Type I Use Type II Use Type III Use Prohibited Use PROPOSED USES IN SECTION GROUP CARE Retirement Housing Community S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2018 Ord\832_Fair_Housing\Staff_Reports_PPTs\PC071818\Table1_GroupCare_Comparisons.xlsx

12 On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Kimberly Armstrong wrote: Ms Heart, Washington County is currently working on a land use ordinance that would allow temporary homeless shelters at places of worship and other habitable institutional buildings. The filed ordinance would allow temporary shelters to operate for up to 12 weeks per year for 2 years, with the option to renew the temporary permit. We ve gotten some questions from the Planning Committee about the length of time temporary shelters should be allowed, and it would probably be helpful to speak directly with you, and possibly one or two host churches, to be sure that we recommend an ordinance that meets the needs of temporary shelter operators. I know this is a holiday week, but if you have any time on Thursday or Friday to speak on the phone or in person, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Kim Kimberly Armstrong, AICP Senior Planner Housing Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 14 Hillsboro, OR direct fax kimberly_armstrong@co.washington.or.us 1

13 From: Annie Heart Sent: Tuesday, July 03, :27 PM To: Kimberly Armstrong Subject: Re: Family Promise temporary shelter operations Hi Kimberly The Family Promise Shelter program is based on families staying at a host church overnight ( 6:00 p.m. till 7:00 a.m.) where they have dinner with church people and sleep overnight in a private room. We only host 3 families at a time so that each church only has to host about 4 times a year and they are not "operating a shelter" they are hosting families temporarily overnight for a week (so it's like a temporary ministry of hospitality - not a permanent shelter). The families come to a Day Shelter for all their basic needs including shower, laundry, food storage, cooking meals, case management and referrals for getting into housing. We do not host families overnight at the Day house - we are not zoned to be an overnight shelter. So we have a win/win situation. This model has been used for over 20 years. The temporary emergency shelters have a lot more restrictions. We are totally a volunteer lead program (except for 3 day staff persons at the Day House). Our Family Promise (in Hillsboro) is also part of the Community Action - Community Connect shelter program. We only serve families that are on the Washington County Community Action wait list for shelter. They are screened and referred to us and can stay up to 6 weeks. There are 3 Community Connect Shelters - Good Neighbor Center (Tigard), Community Action (Hillsboro) and Family Promise (Hillsboro). Good Neighbor and Community Action are fulltime shelters and families can stay up to 6 weeks. They are not affiliated with the church congregations. But we 3 share the same policies and procedures so there is consistency of rules, length of stay and etc between the shelters - makes it easier for the families. Families can be in each of our shelters only once a year. Recently 2 new Family Promise Shelter programs opened in Washington County - one in Beaverton and one in Tualatin. Like us they are independent programs housing families at night in host churches. And then families are at a Day Center during the day. I like our model of being a temporary shelter because shelter should be temporary - if we extend their stay to long term - then it kind of becomes a housing situation. I think having a 6 or 8 week limit keeps families engaged and motivated to work to become self-sufficient and get into housing. We need more "housing situations" not more shelters. People need employment, access to resources, CHILD CARE, transportation and affordable housing. A better model would be to provide services to families in their own home - a housing first model - where they have stability. I will be out of the office for 2 more weeks (recovering from hip surgery) but am happy to correspond with you. Also you may want to get in touch with Annette Evans. She is the Chair of Washington County Housing Support Services. Keep in touch!! 2

14 July 11, 2018 To: From: Subject: Washington County Planning Commission Andy Back, Manager Planning and Development Services PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO An Ordinance Updating the Transportation System Plan to Conform to Certain City Comprehensive Plans and Amending the Community Development Code, Elements of the Comprehensive Plan STAFF REPORT For the July 18, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing (The public hearing will begin no sooner than 6:30 p.m.) I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the public hearing; recommend approval of Ordinance No. 834 to the Board of Commissioners (Board). II. OVERVIEW Ordinance No. 834 proposes amendments to the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) maps and the Community Development Code (CDC) to address transportation-related issues. The proposed map changes would amend the TSP for consistency with transportation system plan changes made by several cities during recent planning efforts, and incorporate several other updates. The amendments proposed by Ordinance No. 834 make minor changes to the TSP and are not intended to be a comprehensive update. The proposed CDC changes include several clarifications and amendments to the land use review procedures for maintenance projects. The Board authorized this ordinance as part of the 2018 Long Range Planning Work Program (Task 1.17). 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

15 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 834 July 11, 2018 Page 2 of 8 III. BACKGROUND Proposed Ordinance No. 834 is a transportation-related ordinance that addresses a variety of relatively minor updates. A more in-depth review of proposed Ordinance No. 834 is included below in the Analysis section of this report. Ordinance Notification Notice regarding proposed Ordinance No. 834 was mailed June 15, 2018 to parties on the General and Individual Notification Lists (community participation organizations, cities, special service districts, and interested parties). A copy of the notice and ordinance was provided to the Planning Commission at that time. A display advertisement regarding the ordinance was published June 29, 2018 in The Oregonian newspaper. IV. ANALYSIS Proposed Ordinance No. 834 has two exhibits. Transportation System Plan (TSP) Amendments (Exhibit 1) Washington County adopted a major update to the Transportation System Plan (TSP), with A-Engrossed Ordinance Nos. 768 and 783. The effective date of both ordinances was December 1, Washington County adopted additional TSP amendment ordinances in 2015 and 2016 to incorporate other planning efforts and minor corrections [A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 799, A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 814]. The cities of Washington County have adopted amendments to their own TSPs in the intervening years. Exhibit 1 proposes amendments to the Washington County TSP to be consistent with city TSPs. In addition to these city plan amendments, County staff has identified other minor changes in response to ongoing planning efforts. Each of these amendments is described briefly below. City of Beaverton amendments Active Transportation Plan The city of Beaverton adopted an active transportation plan in November The city of Beaverton s active transportation plan is generally consistent with the active transportation element of the Washington County TSP. However, the city of Beaverton s active transportation plan identified several roadways for enhanced bicycle facilities that were not previously designated in the Washington County TSP. This ordinance proposes to add the appropriate designations to the Washington County TSP as reflected in Exhibit 1, on Pages 36 through 39. Peterkort Master Plan The city of Beaverton also has been working on the Peterkort Master Plan, in the vicinity of Barnes Road between Cedar Hills Boulevard and Monterey Place (St. Vincent Hospital entrance). This planned unit development effort has included extensive traffic analysis to identify the needed future roadway configurations.

16 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 834 July 11, 2018 Page 3 of 8 In response to the traffic analysis conducted as part of the Peterkort Master Plan, County staff has coordinated with Beaverton staff on the appropriate long-term roadway configurations in the vicinity. Staff recommends amending the lane number designation of Cedar Hills Boulevard between Celeste Lane and Barnes Road from three lanes to five lanes. The change will designate all four approaches to the Cedar Hills Boulevard / Barnes Road intersection as five lanes. The configuration of through and turn lanes will be determined through the project development process. Improvements are expected to proceed through the land development process as conditions of development approval within the city of Beaverton. This lane number amendment is shown on Page 21 of Exhibit 1. City of Hillsboro amendments The city of Hillsboro has adopted three amendments to its Transportation System Plan since the County s last TSP update in The amendments reflect ongoing planning efforts throughout the city of Hillsboro. The functional classification changes associated with city of Hillsboro amendments are reflected in Exhibit 1 on Pages 1 through 7; lane number changes associated with city of Hillsboro amendments are reflected on Pages 17-20, and In addition, the city has made a number of amendments to the South Hillsboro plan. The South Hillsboro functional classification amendments are reflected on Page 10 and the South Hillsboro lane numbers amendments are reflected on Page 26. It should be noted that the County staff intentionally does not recommended adding alignments for proposed neighborhood routes in South Hillsboro (and generally elsewhere except when necessary to accomplish other planning goals). Staff has found that neighborhood route alignment designations can become more problematic than helpful during project implementation. City of Tigard amendments In December 2017, the city of Tigard adopted the Tigard Triangle Lean Code. This ordinance amended both the city s land use plan and TSP for the Tigard Triangle area and vicinity nearby. The functional classification amendments are shown in Exhibit 1, Pages 12 and 13; lane number amendments are shown on Page 27. Page 28 amends the lane number designation of 121st Avenue to be consistent with the city of Tigard s adopted TSP. City of Sherwood amendments The city of Sherwood adopted an update of its TSP in March After reviewing the city s amendments, staff discovered that several corrections were needed for consistency with Sherwood s plan and to reflect transportation projects built within recent years. Pages 14 and 15 make amendments to reflect consistency with the functional classification designations adopted by Sherwood. Page 31 reflects lane numbers as constructed and to reflect the designations in the city of Sherwood TSP. City of Tualatin amendments Pages 29 and 30 amend the lane number designations to correctly reflect adopted lane numbers in the city of Tualatin s TSP. Staff also identified several instances where a roadway was

17 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 834 July 11, 2018 Page 4 of 8 constructed with multiple lanes and the proposed amendments adjust the plan to match the constructed roadway. City of Wilsonville amendments The city of Wilsonville amended its TSP in June 2016 and adopted the Coffee Creek Urban Renewal Plan in October These plans designated that the intersection of Grahams Ferry Road with Day Road would be reconfigured (as either a signal or a roundabout) and connected to Garden Acres Road. Garden Acres Road is planned to be upgraded to urban standards between Day Road and Ridder Road. Ridder Road will be aligned to direct traffic to Garden Acres Road. These changes eliminate the need for the extension of Kinsman Road from Ridder Road to Day Road. Page 16 amends the functional classification designations to be consistent with the built environment and the amendments adopted by the city of Wilsonville. Page 33 amends the lane number map to be consistent with the functional classification designations shown on Page 16. Unincorporated amendments County staff also proposes several TSP amendments discussed below. Exhibit 1, Page 8 shows amendments to the functional classification designation of 173rd Avenue for consistency with the alignment as constructed. No additional or different improvements are planned in the area as a result of this amendment. Page 9 removes the proposed extension of Samedy Court / York Street, a Neighborhood Route between 192nd Avenue and 185th Avenue. This connection has been precluded by development that was approved at about the same time as this extension was adopted as a part of the 2002 TSP. Due to the now existing built environment the proposed extension is unlikely to be able to connect within the planning horizon. The removal of the extension from the plan was requested by Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District, as they are building a park on a small parcel that includes a segment of the proposed road extension. Page 11 removes several proposed Neighborhood Route designations in the vicinity of Cooper Mountain. Development applications were submitted and approved during the development of the TSP in 2002; the development now precludes construction of the proposed roadways. Furthermore, during the development review process, the proposed roadways were determined to not be feasible to construct due to topography, sight distance and stream crossings. Page 32 amends the lane number designations to correctly reflect the alignment of the roadways. Pages 34 and 35 reflect Oregon House Bill 2017, Section 134(3)(d), which transfers the jurisdiction of Cornelius Pass Road between Highway 30 and Highway 26 from Washington and Multnomah county jurisdiction to the Oregon Department of Transportation. Community Development Code (CDC) Amendments (Exhibit 2) Exhibit 2 proposes several amendments to the Washington County Community Development Code (CDC). Staff identified two cleanup amendments; one each in Article IV and Article V.

18 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 834 July 11, 2018 Page 5 of 8 The proposed Article VII amendments would make adjustments to the land use procedures used to review public transportation improvements. Article IV, Section Off-Site Analysis related to Master Planning This section was identified by Current Planning staff as unclear. The intent of the proposed amendment is to clearly define the boundary of the off-site area that must be considered and identify who determines if the boundary is appropriate. Article V, Section B.2 Critical Services Also identified by Current Planning staff as unclear, the intent of this section s proposed amendment is to clarify who determines the appropriate life expectancy of a roadway s paved surface and appropriate roadway standards. Article VII amendments Article VII was initially created by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 421 in 1992 and established land use decision-making categories and criteria for transportation projects. Washington County has concluded that such a land-use decision-making review structure is mandated by Oregon Statewide Planning requirements. In order to fully explain the significance of Article VII and the Plan-Zone-Build model of land-development as it relates to transportation, the staff report for A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 421, dated September 4, 1992, is attached to this staff report as Attachment A. The changes proposed to Article VII have been initiated by county staff to address redundancy in the review process and ensures that projects undergo the appropriate level of land use review. Article VII classifies projects for review based on the type and scale of the project. A project is either exempt or falls into one of three categories: A, B or C. If a project is determined to be exempt it is documented as such and not reviewed any further under Article VII. Category A projects require less in-depth review than category B projects which, in turn, require less indepth review than category C projects. Category B projects typically involve the acquisition of right-of-way. If the Category B project would adjust the centerline of the right-of-way by more than 6 feet, an alternative alignment analysis is required. Category C projects are rare, and generally include significant capital improvements in the rural area. Article VII applies to all types of transportation improvements including the repair and preservation of transportation facilities. The amendments proposed by Ordinance No. 834 focus on identifying the appropriate category of review for maintenance and preservation projects. It is important to remember that Article VII only applies to the County s internal land use review procedures. While reading the proposed Article VII amendments it is also important to understand that the review requirements of Clean Water Services, the Department of State Lands and the Army Corps of Engineers are much more thorough than County land use review requirements. A copy of existing Article VII is attached to this report as Attachment B.

19 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 834 July 11, 2018 Page 6 of 8 Amendments to Section Definitions Section Interim Improvement. The proposed amendment is intended to clarify the definition of interim improvement. Section Maintenance. The proposed amendment is intended to clarify the definition of maintenance. Some additional flexibility is created by allowing maintenance to include activities that are outside of the existing right-of-way (such as acquiring an easement needed for access). Furthermore, enlargement of a structure is proposed to be allowed as a maintenance activity (under Article VII). This becomes an important consideration during the repair or replacement of a culvert or other structure. Currently, if the maintenance activity requires an easement onto an adjoining property the level of review under Article VII is increased (typically to at least Category B). The change is intended to reflect the appropriate level of land use review for maintenance projects and limit the analysis and review time required. This allows the County to do more with scarce maintenance funds. Section Roadway Prism. The proposed amendment is intended to clarify how the roadway prism is measured. Section Ultimate Improvement. The proposed amendment is intended to clarify the definition of ultimate improvement. Section Project Review Committee. The proposed amendments are intended to clarify that the Project Review Committee should only review projects that require review. Amendments to Section 702 Exempt Projects Section The proposed amendments clarify the utilization of the definition of maintenance in and Maintenance that expands the roadway prism by not more than 20 percent is considered exempt. The 20 percent calculation was chosen based on the footprint of a typical roadway in the rural area. Given a 24-foot wide roadway, a 1-foot expansion on each side of a roadway would be less than 20 percent. This provides flexibility for the enlargement of a culvert to address stormwater and/or fish passage without creating unnecessary Article VII review of the project. Section The proposed amendment would exempt the acquisition of right-of-way for a project that has already received Article VII review or is otherwise exempt from Article VII review. The acquisition of right-of-way may occur through a separate process from project development. Amendments to Section 703 Category A Projects Section and are new sections that stipulate maintenance activities as defined in Section that are not otherwise exempt shall be considered through a Category A review. These new sections are intended to prevent maintenance activities that widen a shoulder or culvert from unnecessary Category B review requirements. It should be noted that Category B review requires an alternatives analysis described in Section 707 (see Attachment A). The

20 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 834 July 11, 2018 Page 7 of 8 alternatives analysis is typically inappropriate for a maintenance project that is intended to preserve the functional integrity and safe operating condition of an existing facility. Amendments to Section 704 Category B Projects The proposed amendments in Section 704 are intended to clarify the language. Amendments to Section Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities Adds new language that maintenance and Category A projects are exempt from this section. Maintenance projects, such as replacement of an urban culvert, generally document an exception to the requirement. The maintenance budget for the project is typically unable to complete the addition of a nonmotorized facility stipulated by this section. Furthermore, the new pedestrian and/or bicycle facility itself would often not be connected to an existing network of other pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The requirements of this section place an onerous burden on programming maintenance activities. Category A projects are also proposed to be exempt from the requirements of this section. Category A projects are otherwise exempt improvements except that require the acquisition of right-of-way but otherwise do not modify an existing transportation facility or create a new facility. Many of these improvements are safety or environmental quality enhancements (examples include: signals, signs, guard railings, wider shoulders, reflective markers and/or traffic delimiters). Some of these types of improvements may require additional right-of-way, which means they are not exempt from land use review. The type and scale of Category A projects generally means a smaller budget that is unable to absorb the additional system enhancements identified in Section 712. In practice, the requirements of this section place an onerous burden on Category A projects. Section The proposed amendment would allow interim projects the same flexibility within Section 712 as identified for ultimate improvements.

21 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 834 July 11, 2018 Page 8 of 8 Summary of Proposed Changes Ordinance No. 834 proposes minor changes to the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the Community Development Code related to transportation. Proposed changes include map amendments to the TSP for consistency with city transportation system plans, as well as minor map amendments within unincorporated urban Washington County. CDC amendments include clarifications to the land use review procedures and definitions for transportation-related maintenance projects. Affected Land Use Planning Documents: Transportation System Plan Roadway Element: o Functional Classification Map, o Lane Numbers Map, o Long-Term Jurisdiction Map Active Transportation Elements: o Bicycle System Map Community Development Code: o Section Master Planning o Section Public Facility and Service Requirements o Section Public Transportation Facilities o Section Exempt projects o Section Category A projects o Section Category B projects o Section Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities List of Attachments The following attachments identified in this staff report are provided: Attachment A: Staff Report Proposed Transportation System Planning and Project Development Structure Attachment B: Existing CDC Article VII, Public Transportation Facilities S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2018 Ord\834_TSP\Staff_Reports_PPTs\PC\834_PC_SR_ docx

22 Attachment A

23 Attachment A

24 Attachment A

25 Attachment A

26 Attachment A

27 Attachment A

28 Attachment A

29 Attachment A

30 Attachment A

31 Attachment A

32 Attachment A

33 Attachment A

34 Attachment A

35 Attachment A

36 Attachment A

37 Attachment A

38 Attachment A

39 Attachment B ARTICLE VII - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES The intent of this Article is to identify public transportation improvements that are subject to development review and establish the standards and procedures for such review. Public transportation improvements that are not authorized by this Article, such as airport improvements, are permitted as specified by Article III Land Use Districts Applicability This Article applies to project development for the design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair and preservation of public transportation facilities including roadways and bridges, and transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities authorized by the Washington County Transportation Plan. Conditions of approval may be imposed to address significant impacts demonstrated to arise from the specific location or design of the improvements or decisions authorized by this Article. Except as expressly provided in this Article, the improvements and decisions identified herein: A. Are permitted in each district, and B. Shall be subject only to the standards set forth in this Article Except as expressly provided in this Article, the standards of this Article shall not apply to Local and Neighborhood Route streets inside an urban growth boundary. The standards in this Article are applicable to all public roads and highways outside an urban growth boundary The review standards of this Article are intended to address community or neighborhood impacts rather than isolated impacts on individual properties from which right-of-way or easements are to be obtained. These isolated impacts shall be addressed through right-of-way acquisition, the eminent domain process or dedications required by development in accordance with the procedures and standards applicable thereto Project Categories The following categories of public transportation improvement projects are established: A. Exempt Projects. Projects that are exempt from the provisions of this Code. Decisions authorizing exempt projects are not land use decisions. B. Category A Projects. Projects that involve land use standards that do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment. Decisions authorizing Category A projects are not land use decisions. C. Category B Projects. Projects that involve land use criteria that are reasonably objective and generally require only limited discretion or judgment. Category B projects are assumed to be appropriate in the District. Decisions authorizing Category B projects are land use decisions. D. Category C Projects. Projects that involve land use criteria that require the exercise of a more significant level of discretion and judgment. Category C projects generally have more significant impacts or involve more complex land use issues. Decisions authorizing Category C projects are land use decisions Supplemental Procedures and Standards In addition to the standards of this Article, public transportation improvements are subject to other regulations that are not land use regulations and other practices and procedures that do not involve land use decision-making. It is not the intent of this Article to convert these supplemental regulations, procedures or practices into land use criteria or proceedings. Rather, they are mentioned to inform the