PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE FOR THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HILLSBORO CIVIC CENTER - SHIRLEY HUFFMAN AUDITORIUM 150 EAST MAIN STREET, HILLSBORO, OR 97123

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2017 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 503- 846-3519 (or 7-1-1 for Telecommunications Relay Service) by 5:00 p.m. on the Monday preceding the meeting date.

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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS

8:30 a.m. 1st and 3rd Tuesdays 1:30 p.m. 1st Wednesday

2:00 p.m. 4th Tuesday 6:30 p.m. 3rd Wednesday

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS

10 a.m. 1st and 3rd Tuesdays Note: Occasionally it may be necessary to 6:30 p.m. 4th Tuesday cancel or add a meeting date.

PUBLIC MEETINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HILLSBORO CIVIC CENTER SHIRLEY HUFFMAN AUDITORIUM

WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 20, 2017 6:30 PM

AGENDA

CHAIR: A. RICHARD VIAL VICE-CHAIR: JEFF PETRILLO COMMISSIONERS: 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. Long Range Planning Issue Paper/Project o Transportation Requirements and Procedures for Development (continued from Dec. 6, 2017) 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Limited to items not on the agenda)

6. PUBLIC HEARING

a. Quasi-Judicial Plan Amendment Application Hearing (continued from Dec. 6, 2017)

Casefile No: 17-403-PA Community Plan and CPO: Applicant: John and Eric Wentland Cedar Mill/Cedar Hill – CPO 1 Location:2285 and 2289 SW Briggs Road Description: On the west side of SW Briggs Road, approximately 105 feet south of SW Burlwood Street Request: A Plan Amendment from R-9 (Residential -7 to 9 units/acre) to R-24 (Residential-19 to 24 units/acre)

Department of Land Use & Transportation · Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N. First Ave., Suite 350, MS14 · Hillsboro, OR 97124 Phone: 503-846-3519 · Fax: 503-846-4412 www.co.washington.or.us · [email protected]

Planning Commission Agenda December 20, 2017 Page 2

7. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES

a. November 1, 2017

8. ADJOURN

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2017

ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE RECORDED

1. CALL TO ORDER: 1:30 P.M. Shirley Huffman Auditorium

The meeting was called to order by Chair Vial.

2. ROLL CALL

Planning Commission (PC) members present: A. Richard Vial, Jeff Petrillo, Ed Bartholemy, Tegan Enloe, Deborah Lockwood, Anthony Mills, and Matt Wellner. PC members absent: Ian Beaty, and Eric Urstadt.

Staff present: Andy Back, Theresa Cherniak, Erin Wardell, Steve Kelley, Suzanne Savin, Jessica Pelz, John Floyd, Julie Sosnovske and Susan Aguilar, Long Range Planning (LRP); Jacquilyn Saito-Moore, County Counsel.

3. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Andy Back, Manager for the Planning and Development Services, provided the PC with updates: o PC members were invited to sign-up to packet distribution lists for other Washington County (County) committees, whose work is complimentary to that of the PC. o Future PC meetings: o Dec. 6, at this time we expect to schedule a Plan Amendment hearing and a work session on the Rural Roads Issue Paper. o The 2018 new year topics will entail a follow-up discussion on the Telecommunication and Right of Way ordinance, a briefing on the 2018 Work Program and SW Corridor updates.

Department of Land Use & Transportation · Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N. First Ave., Suite 350, MS14 · Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 Phone: 503-846-3519 · Fax: 503-846-4412 www.co.washington.or.us · [email protected]

Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2017 Page 2 of 4

4. WORK SESSION a. Food Cart Ordinance – continued from October 4, 2017 John Floyd, associate planner with the Community Development group provided a PowerPoint presentation on the potential Food Cart ordinance. Staff addressed concerns presented by the Planning Commission at the October 4, 2017. Staff reviewed the purpose of the ordinance which was to provide a regulatory structure for Food Carts recognizing the temporary status of mobile food units, minimize off-site impacts, protection for public regarding health and safety issues. The discussion also covered development standards, staff recommendation and next steps.

PC discussion included the following comments and questions: • Questions regarding food cart vendors at farm stands and in public right-of-ways. • Questions regarding time and size and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) limitations for food cart sites. • Questions regarding parking requirements. • Discussion regarding whether an ordinance was needed. • Questions regarding the 200 square foot limit for structures. b. Long Range Planning Issue Paper/Project Transportation Requirements and Procedures for Development Steve Kelley, senior transportation planner with the Transportation group presented a PowerPoint presentation on Issue Paper 2017-03 titled, “Transportation Requirements and Procedures for Development.” Staff provided background and process information, policies affected, and staff recommendations. This issue paper was part of the 2017 LRP Work Program directed by the Board of Commissioners (Board). The 2014 Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) also calls for the Board to consider these procedures. The procedures for development were previously adopted by Resolution and Order 86-95 “Determining Traffic Safety Improvements Under the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance.”

PC discussion included the following comments and questions: • Questions regarding the timeline and process for implementing the recommendations in the issue paper. • Questions regarding methods to assess proportionality during development review. • Question regarding the terminology. • Comments that the issue paper was of sufficient size as to require additional time for PC members to fully digest and formulate responses.

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None

Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2017 Page 3 of 4

6. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES

• August 16, 2017

Commissioner Wellner moved to approve the August 16, 2017 PC minutes. Commissioner Petrillo seconded motion. Vote: 5-3-1 (Commissioner Mills left early and Commissioner Bartholemy abstained). Motion passed.

Commissioner Vote Bartholemy Abstained Beaty Absent Enloe Yes Lockwood Yes Mills Absent Petrillo Yes Urstadt Absent Vial Yes Wellner Yes

• October 4, 2017

Commissioner Bartholemy moved to approved the October 4, 2017 PC minutes. Commissioner Petrillo seconded motion. Vote: 5-2-2. Motion passed.

Commissioner Vote Bartholemy Yes Beaty Absent Enloe Yes Lockwood Yes Mills Abstained Petrillo Yes Urstadt Absent Vial Yes Wellner Abstained

7. ADJOURN: 3:56 P.M.

There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned.

Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2017 Page 4 of 4

A. Richard Vial Andrew Singelakis Chairman, Washington County Secretary, Washington County Planning Commission Planning Commission

Minutes approved this ______day of ______, 2017

Submitted by Long Range Planning Staff

Land Use & Transportation CASEFILE: 17-403-PA

Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS14 APPLICANTS: Hillsboro, OR 97124 John and Eric Wentland 503-846-3519 1519 SE 104th Ct. Vancouver, WA 98684 CASEFILE NO. 17-403-PA 503-893-9388

STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE OWNER: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON: John and Shirley Wentland December 20, 2017 (Address above)

Andy Back, Manager REPRESENTATIVE/CONTACT PERSON: Planning and Development Services Andrew Parish, Angelo Planning Group 921 SW Washington St., Suite 468 Portland, OR 97205 PROCEDURE TYPE: III CPO: 1______503-227-3488

COMMUNITY PLAN: Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill SITE ADDRESS: 2285 and 2289 SW Briggs Road ASSESSOR MAP & TAX LOT: 1S109BA06200 LAND USE DISTRICT(S): LOCATION: On the west side of SW Briggs Road, Existing: R-9 (Residential – 7 to 9 units/acre) approximately 105 feet south of SW Burlwood Street Proposed: R-24 (Residential 19 to 24 units/acre) SIZE: 0.22 acres

REQUEST: Plan amendment to change the land use designation of a 0.22-acre lot that contains an existing duplex from R-9 to R-24, consistent with the designation of bordering lands to the south and west

RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the facts and findings provided in this report, staff finds that the applicant has adequately demonstrated compliance with applicable Oregon Statewide Planning Goals, the State Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060), the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-007), the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan Policies and Implementing Strategies, Washington County Transportation System Plan Goals, the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan, and the Washington County Community Development Code as these apply to quasi- judicial Plan Amendments. Additionally, the applicant has provided evidence that adequate services can feasibly be provided by Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Tualatin Valley Water District, Clean Water Services, the Washington County Sheriff, Beaverton School District #48J, Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District and TriMet, subject to compliance with related requirements determined through any future development application.

The proposal offers the County opportunity to encourage and accommodate additional needed housing as directed by Statewide Planning Goal 10 and the Metropolitan Housing Rule, in an area that appears suited to additional density based on state, Metro, and County provisions addressed within this report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this plan amendment request.

Attachments: A – Transportation Report B – Traffic Impact Statement Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 2 of 30

I. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS This quasi-judicial plan amendment is subject to compliance with regulations/goals of the following: State: Statewide Planning Goals, Transportation Planning Rule (TPR – OAR 660-012-0060), Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-007); Metro: Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP); Washington County: Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (CFP), Transportation System Plan (TSP), Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan, and Community Development Code (CDC).

Staff notes that applicants are not asked to address Statewide Planning Goals that are otherwise addressed by the applicant’s findings of compliance with the CFP. Additionally, when useful for context, this report may include staff findings addressing other criteria that the applicant was not asked to address.

This report has been organized to address regulations contained in the documents listed by topic as follows: A. Citizen Involvement B. Land Use Planning C. Housing D. Transportation E. Other Public Facilities and Services

II. AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS AND AGENCIES Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) West Slope Water District Clean Water Services (CWS) Washington County Sheriff Beaverton School District #48J Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District (THPRD) Metro TriMet

III. BACKGROUND Applicant: See pages 5-7 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Property Description The 0.22-acre subject property is currently designated R-9 and contains two units within a duplex built around 1920. The units are addressed as 2285 and 2289 SW Briggs Road. The site could accommodate up to three more units, for a total of five, if its designation were changed to R-24 as requested. The site is identified as tax map/lot 1S1 09BA 06200 and sits on the west side of SW Briggs Road (a local street), approximately 300 feet north of SW Jenkins Road (an arterial street), in unincorporated Washington County. The site is within the Cedar Hills subarea of the Cedar Hills- Cedar Mill Community Plan. According to the Community Plan, the site is not within an Area of Special Concern and includes no significant natural resource areas. Mature trees are present along property lines bordering other lots.

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 3 of 30

Land Use History Land use designations and development of the subject lot and its parent parcel (the larger lot from which it was divided) have evolved over the years as follows:  1920: Onsite duplex built (pre-zoning)  Early zoning: A-2 (Apartment Residential District for multi-family residential development) – entire parent parcel, including subject site (See Figure 1, below);  1974: RU-4 (urban high-low density residential detached units on individual lots) – entire parent parcel, including subject site;  1974-1976: RU-15 (high-medium density low-rise multi-family garden residences) applied to south and west of site on its parent parcel for construction of Oak View Apartments;  1983: R-24 applied to Oak View Apartments site. R-5 applied to subject property, which had been divided from the parent site. Existing onsite duplex is then nonconforming to R-5 maximum density;  2010: R-9 applied to subject lot through housekeeping/update ordinance to make maximum allowable site density consistent with the presence of the duplex – site becomes the only R-9 lot in the neighborhood and remains as such today.

Land use history of the subject site and vicinity is addressed in more detail under Section IV.B.4 of this report (Land Use Planning, CFP Policy 1).

Figure 1: Original and Current Land Use Designations

General Area of Site Before Divided from Site Parent Lot

Remainder Parent Lot of Parent Lot

1967 Assessor’s Map: Land Use Designations as of 1983: Site and Parent Parcel Designated A-2 (Shown Yellow) Site: R-5 (Shown Blue), Parent Parcel: R-24 (Shown Peach)

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 4 of 30

Figure 2: Recent Aerial Photo and current Land Use Designations of Site and Vicinity

Dense Station Community Oak View Beaverton Station Oak View Site: Now Development in Apartments Community designations Apartments Only R-9 Beaverton on Parent Lot (No Maximum Density) on Parent Lot in Vicinity Site

NIKE

NIKE

INDUSTRIAL: MAXIM, NIKE, OTHERS

2016 Aerial Photo of Site and Vicinity Current Land Use Designations of Site and Vicinity

Site Vicinity (See Figure 2, above) A brief summary of the site vicinity is as follows:  SW Jenkins Road is about 300 feet south of the site and intersects with SW Murray Road about 1,550 feet to the west. Both are arterial roadways and transit routes;  Two light rail stops exist approximately ½ mile southwest and south of the site;  The Oak View Apartments are present on R-24 land immediately bordering the site along its south and west lines;  Just west of those apartments, high density Station Community development (no maximum density) is present within the city of Beaverton where a mobile home park existed until 2007;  R-5 land north of the Oak View Apartments and the site, includes a subdivision of single family detached homes platted in 1960;  Single family homes are also present immediately east/southeast across SW Briggs Road, on properties zoned R-5 and R-24; apartments are present on adjacent R-24 land just to their east;  Major employers are nearby – the Nike campus about 1,600 feet east of the site, and industrial development about 400 feet south of the site;  A concentration of services, shopping and entertainment exists in the Cedar Hills Crossing area, within walking distance to the east, also creating employment;  No R-9 properties other than the site exist within a mile.

Sections IV.B.2 and B.3 of this report (Land Use Planning) address the above in more detail (particularly under UGMFP Title 6 and Figure 3, and the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan).

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 5 of 30

Testimony No comment letters have been received in response to public notice of this Plan Amendment request as of the completion date of this Staff Report. Written testimony submitted after the completion of the report and preparation of the Planning Commission (PC) packet will be provided to the PC for review and for inclusion in the record at the public hearing.

IV. FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE

A. Citizen Involvement 1. Statewide Planning Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement 2. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP): Title 8 – Compliance Procedures 3. Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (CFP): Policy 2 – Citizen Involvement 4. Washington County Community Development Code (CDC) Section 204 – Notice

Citizen Involvement – Summary of Findings Staff finds that requirements related to Citizen Involvement have been addressed in compliance with provisions of Statewide Planning Goal 1, Metro UGMFP Title 8, and the Washington County CFP and CDC. See more detailed findings for applicable criteria/regulations below.

1. Statewide Planning Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement Staff: Goal 1 is intended to provide opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The Washington County CFP implements Statewide Planning Goals. Findings of compliance with CFP Policy 2 (Citizen Involvement), below, address this Goal.

2. Metro UGMFP Title 8 – Compliance Procedures Applicant: See pages 23 and 24 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: UGMFP Title 8 [3.07.860(c) – under Citizen Involvement in Compliance Review] requires cities and counties to comply with their own adopted and acknowledged citizen involvement requirements in all decisions, determinations and actions taken to implement and comply with the UGMFP, including comprehensive plan amendments. Findings of compliance with the County’s adopted citizen involvement requirements (CFP Policy 2) are addressed immediately below. In addition to these findings regarding citizen involvement, this report addresses compliance with other provisions of the UGMFP under sections IV.B (Land Use Planning) and C (Housing).

3. Washington County CFP Policy 2 – Citizen Involvement This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to encourage citizen participation in all phases of the planning process and to provide opportunities for continuing involvement and effective communication between citizens and their county government.

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 6 of 30

Applicant: See page 10 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Quasi-judicial plan amendments, including that currently proposed, are subject to a Type III review procedure that requires a public hearing. The Type III process requires the County to provide several forms of notification to the public, including a brief description of the proposal, the hearing date for its consideration, and information on how to participate/submit related testimony.

The County’s Community Development Code Sections 203 and 204 provide specific standards that implement citizen involvement policies of the CFP. The County has therefore provided opportunity for citizen involvement in the decision-making process for this proposal, in accord with CFP Policy 2, through compliance with those CDC sections. Findings of compliance with CDC Sections 203 and 204 are provided immediately below.

4. Washington County Community Development Code (CDC) Section 203 – Processing Type I, II, and III Development Applications Staff: For applications reviewed through a Type III procedure, including the proposed plan amendment, CDC Section 203-6.2 requires that a staff report be available at least seven days in advance of the hearing, and mailed to the applicant and all parties requesting a copy. This staff report was made available/delivered as required above on November 29, 2017, seven days prior to the hearing date. Interested parties were therefore afforded time to review the report and prepare related testimony prior to the hearing if desired, as intended by this CDC section.

Section 204 – Notice Staff: For applications reviewed through a Type III procedure, including the proposed plan amendment, CDC Section 204-4 requires the County to mail notice of the hearing, at least 20 days prior to its scheduled date, to:  All owners of record whose property lies within 500 feet of the subject site; and  The recognized Citizen Participation Organization (CPO) for to the area containing the subject site.

CDC Section 204 also requires the County to publish notice of the hearing for a quasi- judicial plan amendment, at least 10 days prior to its scheduled date, in a newspaper of general circulation within that portion of the County affected by the proposed plan amendment.

As required, the County mailed notice to all owners of record whose property is within 500 feet of the subject site, and to the CPO leader, on November 16, 2017 (20 days prior to the scheduled hearing date). Additionally, the County provided newspaper notice within The Oregonian, published November 24, 2017 (12 days prior to the hearing).

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 7 of 30

B. Land Use Planning 1. Statewide Planning Goals Goal 2 – Land Use Planning Goal 14 – Urbanization 2. Metro UGMFP Title 6 – Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets Title 8 – Compliance Procedures 3. Washington County Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan Overview Cedar Hills Subarea Design Elements 4. Washington County CFP: Policy 1 – The Planning Process Policy 13 – Urbanization, Reasons for Growth Policy 18 – Plan Designations and Location Criteria for Development Policy 39 – Land Use Conservation (See also Transportation) Policy 40 – Regional Planning Implementation

Land Use Planning – Summary of Findings Staff finds that Land Use Planning requirements have been addressed in compliance with provisions of Statewide Planning Goals 2 and 14, Metro UGMFP Titles 6 and 8, the Washington County Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan, and the County’s CFP. See more detailed findings for applicable criteria/regulations below.

1. Statewide Planning Goals Goal 2 – Land Use Planning Staff: Goal 2 outlines basic procedures of Oregon’s statewide (land use) planning program. It requires local jurisdictions to have a comprehensive plan and adopt ordinances to implement the plan. Goal 2 also requires that local plans and ordinances be coordinated with those of other jurisdictions and agencies, reviewed periodically, and amended as needed.

To allow for inter-agency/inter-jurisdictional coordination consistent with Goal 2, Washington County provided copies of this proposed plan amendment to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and Metro on November 1, 2017, and to affected jurisdictions and service providers on November 16, 2017.

As required by Goal 2, Washington County has an adopted comprehensive plan that implements Statewide Planning Goals. It will be amended to reflect the proposed plan amendment if approved. The County also has adopted ordinances that implement the CFP, mainly through the CDC and Community Plans. Findings of compliance with CFP Policy 1 (The Planning Process) and the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan, below, further address compliance with Goal 2.

Goal 14 – Urbanization Staff: The intent of Goal 14 is that urban comprehensive plans and implementing measures accommodate urban employment and urban populations inside the urban growth boundary, by encouraging efficient use of land and development of livable

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 8 of 30

communities. The Goal primarily relates to areas newly added to the urban growth boundary. While the subject site is not a new urban area, staff believes that potential to increase land use efficiency and livability remain key considerations when comprehensive plan amendments affecting existing urban areas occur over time.

Staff believes that, consistent with Goal 14 and surrounding development, the proposed plan amendment would increase opportunity for efficient use of land and development of livable communities by accommodating up to three additional residential units in a location quite convenient to major employers and services.

The County’s CFP implements Statewide Planning Goals. Findings of compliance with CFP Policy 13 (Urbanization, Reasons for Growth), below, further addresses this Goal.

2. Metro UGMFP Title 6 – Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets Staff: Title 6 calls for actions/investments by local jurisdictions, combined with regional investments, to support development of Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets per Metro’s Regional Framework Plan as principal centers of urban life.

As indicated in Figure 3, below, the subject site is not identified within the UGMFP (Title 6) as a Center, Corridor, Station Community or Main Street area. However, the UGMFP shows conceptual Station Community boundaries nearby to the south along the Trimet Max light rail line. Further, land about 150 feet south and 400 feet west of the site has been developed under city of Beaverton station community zoning. Land to the southwest, across the intersection of SW Murray Boulevard and SW Jenkins Road is shown on the UGMFP map as a conceptual Station Community and zoned accordingly. Staff believes that the proposed plan amendment to designate the only existing R-9 site in the immediate area as R-24, to match the designation of property immediately to the west and south, would provide consistency in the transition between northerly/easterly R-5 and nearby station community development.

Figure 3: Site Vicinity: Conceptual Station Community Areas Represented on the UGMFP Map vs. Existing City and County Land Use Designations

Beaverton Station Community Designations Today

Site: Proposed Change from R-9 to R-24

Station Communities, Conceptual Boundaries (per UGMFP map)

Site (General Location) Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 9 of 30

Title 8 – Compliance Procedures Applicant: See pages 23 and 24 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: UGMFP Title 8 (3.07.810 – Compliance with the Functional Plan) requires that comprehensive plans of local jurisdictions be consistent with the UGMFP. To ensure that local land use designations and associated allowable uses remain consistent with the UGMFP, Title 8 also requires cities and counties to notify Metro of any proposed amendments to their comprehensive plans. Notice of this proposed plan amendment was provided to Metro on November 1, 2017.

In addition to these findings of compliance with land use provisions (and related findings under Title 6, above), this report addresses compliance with other UGMFP provisions under sections IV.A (Citizen Involvement) and C (Housing).

3. Washington County Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan Overview The Overview section of the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan states that for areas outside its northwest, central, and east plan areas: …increased residential densities are suggested only for those lands which seem appropriate. For example, an area encompassing large-sized residential lots located near a Collector is a good location for increased density if the land is also relatively free from steep slopes or drainage hazards… Frequently, lots in these areas already are developed with detached homes…

South of Sunset Highway, on both the east and west sides of Highway 217, the pattern of low density residential development is well established. Few opportunities exist for the introduction of medium or high density housing. The Community Plan recommends increased density in this sector of the planning area only in locations which are adjacent to major transportation routes and shopping areas. Employment centers in Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill include the Sunset Science Industrial Park, the Tektronix campus, and several office complexes in the vicinity of the Cedar Hills Shopping Center…

Applicant: See page 17 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan text above suggests that potential to increase residential densities is limited within well-established residential areas south of Highway 26. The language notes, however, that for areas other than northwestern, central, and eastern sections of the community plan area, opportunities may exist within underdeveloped residential lots. The plan recommends increased density on such lots, only in areas adjacent to major transportation routes and shopping areas, and makes mention of employment centers, office complexes, and shopping areas present in the vicinity of the subject site.

The site, which already includes two units (a duplex) could accommodate up to three more units if its existing R-9 designation were changed to R-24 as requested. As shown in Figure 3, below, the subject site is located south of Highway 26 in the southwestern part of the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community plan area. It sits about

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 10 of 30

300 feet north of SW Jenkins Road, a major transportation route. The location is about 1,600 feet east of the Nike campus, 400 feet north of industrial land, and a few blocks west of services, shopping and entertainment opportunities in and around Cedar Hills Crossing (formerly the Cedar Hills Shopping Center). The site does not appear to include drainage hazard areas or notable slopes. In an area where opportunities to increase density are rare, according to the community plan, these factors appear to present an appropriate opportunity for increased residential density consistent with plan provisions.

This proposal therefore complies with provisions of the Community Plan’s Overview, above.

Figure 3: Southwestern Site Location within Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan Area

Site: General Location within Cedar Hills Subarea

Cedar Hills Subarea Subarea text states, in part: With few exceptions, the established low density character of the Cedar Hills subarea is continued in the plan…. No change to the present land use arrangement is envisioned in the Cedar Hills Shopping Center vicinity…

Applicant: See page 20 of the applicant’s narrative.

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 11 of 30

Staff: The subject site is located several blocks west of Cedar Hills Crossing. R-24 designations are now present southeast of the site across SW Briggs Road and as previously noted, immediately south and west of the site. Still higher densities (with no maximum) are present in Beaverton station community-zoned lands just west of those. The site itself is medium density R-9, but as the only such designated property in the area, it is inconsistent with its surroundings. While R-5 designations still apply north of the site and on two lots to the west across SW Briggs Road, the low density character of the area as reflected in 1983 Community Plan language has evolved to one that includes a mix of both low and high densities.

Subarea expectations as envisioned in the 1983 community plan have therefore become less appropriate to the subject site and its immediate vicinity over time, while Overview provisions regarding potential for density increases remain more relevant. Further, of the two design elements that the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill community plan prescribes for the Cedar Hills subarea, both are specific to locations not inclusive of the subject site. Staff therefore finds that the proposal adequately demonstrates consistency with relevant aspects of the Community plan related to land use.

4. Washington County CFP Policy 1 – The Planning Process This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to establish an ongoing Planning Program which is a responsive legal framework for comprehensive planning and community development and accommodates changes and growth in the physical, economic and social environment, in response to the needs of the County's citizens.

It is the policy of Washington County to provide the opportunity for a landowner or his/her agent to initiate quasi-judicial amendments to the Comprehensive Plan on a semi-annual basis…

The County will: *** f. Approve a quasi-judicial plan amendment to the Primary Districts on the Community Plan Maps… only if the Review Authority determines that the proponent has demonstrated that the proposed designation conforms to the locational criteria of the Comprehensive Framework Plan.

Where applicable, the proponent must also establish with the Review Authority compliance and conformance with the following:  The provisions of Policies 40 and 41;  The Community Plan Overview and sub-area description and design elements;  The policies, strategies and systems maps of the Transportation Plan; and  The regional functional planning requirements established by Metro…

The proponent may also be required to demonstrate to the Review Authority that the potential service impacts of the designation will not impact the built or planned service delivery system in the community. This is a generalized analysis

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 12 of 30

that in no way precludes full application of the Growth Management Policies to development permits as provided in the Code.

In addition, the proponent shall demonstrate one of the following… 1. A mistake in the current designation such that it probably would not have been placed on the property had the error been brought to the attention of the Board during the adoption process; *** 4. A major change in circumstances affecting a significant number of properties in a community subarea or subareas. Events deemed to cause a major change in circumstances are limited to one of the following:

a) The construction of a major capital improvement (e.g., an arterial or collector, a sports arena or convention center, or a regional shopping center) which was unanticipated by the applicable community plan or other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.

b) Previously approved plan amendments for properties in an area that have changed the character of the area to the extent that the existing designations for other properties in the area are no longer appropriate.

Applicant: See pages 6, 7 and 8-10 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Through Policy 1, the County allows landowners to initiate quasi-judicial amendments to land use districts on the Community Plan, in response to changes and growth in the physical, economic and social environment, and needs of the County's citizens. As described above, proposed redesignation of the subject R-9 property to R-24 through the requested plan amendment is consistent with significant changes in zoning and development of the site vicinity since the drafting of the 1983 Community Plan.

As required by Policy 1(f), the applicant has demonstrated compliance with CFP locational criteria of Policy 18 and regional planning provisions of Policy 40, the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan Overview and sub-area provisions, and applicable requirements of the County’s TSP and Metro’s UGMFP. The applicant has established conformance with each of the above and this staff report includes findings of compliance for each. This plan amendment application does not propose any changes to the UGB, therefore Policy 41 (Urban Growth Boundary Expansions) does not apply. Requirements regarding potential service impacts are addressed within this report under sections IV.D – Transportation, and E – Other Public Facilities and Services, and in the attached Transportation Report (Attachment A).

Of seven scenarios outlined under Policies 1(f)(1) through 1(f)(7), applicants for quasi- judicial plan amendments need only establish that circumstances of one apply to the subject site. The applicant has provided findings indicating that not just one but two of the qualifying scenarios apply in this case, addressing both Policy 1(f)(1) and 1(f)(4), with emphasis on the latter.

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 13 of 30

Policy 1(f)(1) – The applicant suggests that with adoption of the 1983 community plan, the subject property was designated R-5 in error. The applicant’s related narrative is discussed and supplemented with staff input below as follows.  The applicant notes that, before 1976, the subject lot was part of the larger property immediately west and south of the site, and an RU-4 designation applied to the entire combined area. This designation no longer exists in the County, but reflected both high and low density development of detached single family homes on individual lots and related institutional uses. Zoning maps from even earlier (1960s) show the entire parent parcel, including the subject lot area, as A-2 (Apartment Residential District, an early zone for multi-family development).  In 1974-1976 the RU-4 designation of land to the south and west was changed to RU-15 (another designation no longer found in the County, intended for high- medium density low-rise multi-family garden residences). As part of the associated plan amendment (Case File 76-174-Z), a condition required right-of- way dedication along SW Briggs Road for the entire parent parcel, including the lot that is the subject of the current plan amendment request.  Land within the parent parcel, excluding the current subject area, was then developed with an apartment complex (Oak View Apartments), and the existing duplex (circa 1920) on the now-subject site was used as the construction and development office for that project.  During that construction: o A sewer line was reportedly installed from the duplex to the lateral serving the Oak View Apartments without proper permits, and the septic tank and drain field that had served the duplex were abandoned; and o Right-of-way was dedicated as required along the entire SW Briggs Street frontage, including that of the now-subject site.  Before the apartments were completed and occupied, the subject property was divided from the parent parcel.  The property owner of the now-subject parcel was later reportedly required to correct the illegal sewer connection by constructing a new sewer extension along SW Briggs Road, with capacity to serve future R-24 development of the property.  With the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan adoption in 1983: o The Oak View Apartments property was designated R-24; o The subject property, now an outparcel of the Oak View Apartments site, had never been a part of the subdivision immediately to the north (Furlong Park No. 2, circa 1960), but was designated R-5 like that subdivision. The maximum density allowance of the R-5 district is five units per acre, accommodating no more than one unit on a lot the size of the subject site (0.22 acres). As such the lawful on-site pre-war duplex was made nonconforming by application of this designation.  To correct for the above, the County redesignated the subject site R-9 through Ordinance No. 732 in 2010 (a General Update and Housekeeping Ordinance), allowing for a maximum of two units onsite consistent with the existing duplex development. Although the report for that ordinance briefly states that staff found no evidence of a mapping error in the original R-5 community plan designation of the site, no related analysis/findings appear to have been provided as a basis to make that determination.

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 14 of 30

Staff agrees that community plan designation of the site, both as R-5 in 1983 and as R- 9 in 2010, may not have occurred if the above details could have been more thoroughly explored and presented to the Board at the time of proposed amendments.

The 1983 R-5 designation appears to have overlooked several important points:  The presence of two lawful units onsite at the time;  The fact that the R-5 designation would render them nonconforming to the density maximum of the district;  The nature of the onsite duplex as attached housing on a single lot – perhaps more similar to southerly/westerly apartment development than to single family detached housing on individual lots to the north; and  Improvements/dedications required of the subject site that reflect assumed development at the density of its parent parcel.

Later, the intended correction applied through Ordinance No. 732 in 2010, designating the single subject lot R-9, made the lot neither consistent with one nor the other of two abutting land use designations, and ultimately, the only lot of its particular residential designation within a mile. Plans for densification of the former R-9 mobile home park were already underway, ultimately resulting in annexation to the City of Beaverton for Station Community development).

In both years, however, the amendments were proposed as part of larger County ordinances – one concerning adoption of an entire community plan; the other addressing yearly housekeeping and general updates to County land use regulations overall. Neither process appears to have afforded consideration of site-specific details discussed above. These issues appear informative to the decision-making process such that their prior absence from considerations may have left room for error/mistakes in assignment of land use designations.

Notwithstanding the above, the applicant states that the primary basis for this plan amendment request is addressed by provisions of Policy 1(f)(4), below.

Policy 1(f)(4) – On pages 9 and 10 of the submitted application, the applicant discusses significant changes involving the site and surrounding area since adoption of the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan in 1983. These include capital improvements, annexations, and plan amendments that have changed the character of development in the area, making the site more appropriate for higher residential density. Changes include:

 1998 MAX Blue Line construction, with Millikan Way and Beaverton Creek stops approximately ½ mile southwest and south of the subject site [capital improvements consistent with 1(f)(4)(a), above];  2007 removal of a mobile home park from land once located in Washington County, on the northeast corner of SW Murray Boulevard and SW Jenkins Road (adjacent to the subject site’s parent parcel); 2010 city of Beaverton annexation of

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 15 of 30

the land (approximately 26 acres); rezoning of it from the County’s R-9 designation to the city’s "Station Community - High Density" and "Station Community - Multiple Use" zones [plan amendments consistent with 1(f)(4)(b), above]; and subsequent development with high-density multifamily housing, an athletic club and spa.

The applicant explains that circumstances above have created a node of greater density, activity and transit access than foreseen during development of the original Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan. Based on these changes, the applicant requests that the subject site be redesignated from R-9 to R-24, consistent with the higher density that has evolved in the area over time.

Consistent with 1(f)(4), staff adds that the following changes within the local area further support increased onsite density:  Aforementioned County redesignation of the parent parcel (Oak View Apartments site) from the obsolete RU-15 zone to R-24 with adoption of the 1983 community plan;  Redevelopment and expansion of Cedar Hills Crossing and vicinity to the east, increasing service and entertainment options within walking/bicycling distance of the site;  The County’s redesignation of the Nike campus (about 1,600 feet west of the site within convenient walking distance) from its 1983 designation as Industrial (IND) to Transit Oriented Employment District (TO:EMP) via Ordinance no. 485A in 1997; and  Ongoing expansion/construction of the Nike campus, within both County and city jurisdictional areas, along with related road/pedestrian/bicycle facility improvements.

Based on the above, staff concurs that this plan amendment is supported by both CFP Policy 1(f)(1) and 1(f)(4).

Policy 13 – Urbanization: Reasons for Growth This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to establish a growth management system for the unincorporated areas within the UGB which promotes: (1) Efficient, economic provision of public facilities and services; (2) Infill development in established areas while preserving existing neighborhood character; (3) Development near or contiguous to existing urban development where services are available; (4) Parcelization of land such that future development at urban densities can take place; (5) Development which is compatible with existing land uses; *** (7) Development in concert with adopted community plans; and (8) Utilization of the existing capital infrastructure.

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 16 of 30

The County will: a. Permit growth to occur only in areas with adequate public services and facilities… b. Encourage infill development where such development will not adversely affect existing uses and where the capacity of existing public facilities and services will not be exceeded…

Staff: As previously described, transit development and growth of employment centers nearby has driven increased demand for housing in the vicinity of the subject site. As previously discussed, the 0.22-acre site is the only lot with an R-9 designation in the general vicinity – currently making it inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Existing R-24 land flanks the site on two sides within the Oak View Apartments site, its parent parcel. A change from R-9 to R-24 would accommodate up to five residential units (three additional units in addition to the two already present) on the subject lot, compatible with neighborhood densification on its parent parcel and lands south and west of that. Further, the proposed plan amendment would allow for efficient introduction of additional density in an area where public facilities, services, and infrastructure are already in place to accommodate it. None of the service provider letters submitted by the applicant indicate that this proposal would exceed service capacities (see details under section IV.E of this report – Other Public Facilities and Services). The proposed plan amendment appears to be supported by provisions of Policy 13 as described above, and pursuant to Policy 13.b., it appears that County encouragement of increased onsite development is warranted.

Policy 18 – Plan Designations and Location Criteria for Development This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to prepare community plans and development regulations in accordance with land use categories and location criteria contained in the comprehensive framework plan…

Through the preparation of Community Plans the application of the plan designations may deviate from the general characterizations of those designations. *** R-9 Location Criteria: Residences in this class should generally be located close to, but not necessarily on, Collector and/or Arterial streets. They should be located away from intersections of Arterials and Collectors. This kind of location allows moderately good access to transit, reduces through traffic on local streets, and mitigates noise and air pollution impacts. If appropriate design features can protect the area from potential adverse impacts, adjacent land uses may include detached and attached residences, retail commercial, office commercial, and industrial uses. *** R-24 Location Criteria: Residences in this class should be located on or near Collectors and Arterials. Through traffic access to residences in this district should not be provided from local streets. Locations on or near Transit Streets are desirable for these uses. Location of residences at or near Collector-Arterial and Arterial-Arterial intersections will require use of construction design techniques to reduce potential visual, noise, and air pollution impacts on occupants. If appropriate design features can protect the area from

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 17 of 30

adverse impacts, adjacent land uses may include detached and attached units, mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions, retail commercial, office commercial, and industrial uses.

Applicant: See pages 11 and 12 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Policy 18 addresses designation of land under the R-9 and R-24 Districts by providing Location Criteria for each as indicated above. As described within the applicant’s narrative and in other sections of this report, the subject site meets locational criteria for designation as R-24 in the following ways:  Located approximately 300 feet north of SW Jenkins Road, which intersects with to SW Murray Boulevard nearby – both are classified as arterial roadways and transit streets;  Sufficiently set back from the intersection of the nearby arterial roads that it is afforded some buffering from associated adverse visual, noise, and air pollution impacts;  Transitions in zoning/land use designations and associated densification in the immediate vicinity, leaving the site adjacent to R-24 land on two sides and properties with station community zoning (no maximum density) just beyond the existing R-24;  Lack of R-9 properties other than the subject site within a one mile radius; and  Other issues as described in detail under finings for Policy 1, above.

The locational criteria for R-9 and R-24 are similar. An exception is the provision under R-24 criteria advising that access should not be from a local street. In County land use reviews, the word should is generally interpreted as a recommendation, not a requirement. Regardless, Policy 18 allows for some deviation within the community plan development process (of which plan amendments are a part). The subject site accesses a local street (SW Briggs Road), but the same is true for the abutting R-24 apartment property. Despite this, findings within the Transportation Report (Attachment A) indicate that development of the site at maximum R-24 density would not significantly degrade the planned motor vehicle system or affect the functional classification of any nearby street or highway.

Based on context provided in bullet points above and findings under Policy 1, staff believes that the proposed R-24 designation is more appropriate for the subject site than is the existing R-9 designation.

Policy 39 – Land Use Conservation This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to develop land use strategies which take advantage of density and location to reduce the need to travel, increase access to transit, increase the use of alternate modes of transportation, including transit, and permit building configurations which increase the efficiency of heating and cooling residences… The County will… ***

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 18 of 30

c. Plan for higher density urban development in areas with convenient access to public transportation. d. Encourage close Locational relationships between living, working, shopping, and recreation areas in accord with the development concept. e. Encourage development of compact communities containing a range of commercial and residential uses…

Applicant: See page 14 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: The proposed plan amendment meets the above Land Use Conservation provisions of Policy 39 in that it would:  Reduce the need to travel by allowing for three additional households in a community with convenient access to public transportation (both bus service and light rail), close to employment, shopping, and recreation as described in earlier findings; and  Further develop the compact nature of the community that is already reflected in properties to the west and south.

Additional findings of compliance with Policy 39 are included below under section IV.D of this report – Transportation, and in the Transportation Report (Attachment A).

Policy 40 – Regional Planning Implementation This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to help formulate and locally implement Metro’s regional growth management requirements in a manner that best serves existing and future residents and businesses.

Applicant: See page 15 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Policy 40 was adopted through Ordinance No. 561, which applied the 2040 Growth Concept Design Types to all of the unincorporated urban areas of Washington County. There are nine urban design types: Central City, Regional Center, Town Center, Station Communities, Main Streets, Corridors, Employment Land, Parks & Natural Areas, and Neighborhood.

The 2040 Growth Concept Plan identifies the area including the subject site and immediate vicinity as a Neighborhood, but as described earlier, much of the nearby Neighborhood-designated land has evolved into station community development over time. The site enjoys convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to commercial amenities and to transit [nearby light rail stations and bus service on SW Jenkins Road and SW Murray Boulevard (a Corridor on the Concept Plan)]. Housing in proximity to established corridors supports the intent of the Regional 2040 Growth Concept.

The site’s existing R-9 district allows 7 to 9 units per acre. The requested R-24 district allows 19 to 24 units per acre, which could accommodate an increase in housing by three units for a total of five. As such, approval of this plan amendment could help to implement UGMFP goals to address housing needs/capacity within a compact urban

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 19 of 30

form. More detailed findings regarding implementation of Metro’s requirements are included under sections IV.A.2, B.2, and C.3 of this report (addressing UGMFP Titles 1, 6, 8 and 12).

C. Housing 1. Statewide Planning Goal 10 – Housing 2. Metropolitan Housing Rule – OAR 660-0007 3. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP): Title 1 – Housing Capacity Title12 – Protection of Residential Neighborhoods 4. Washington County CFP: Policy 21 – Housing Affordability Policy 22 – Housing Choice and Availability Policy 23 – Housing Condition 5. Washington County Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan 6. Washington County CDC: Section 304 – R-9 (Residential 7 to 9 Units per Acre) Section 306 – R-24 (Residential 19 to 24 Units per Acre)

Housing – Summary of Findings Staff finds that requirements central to housing have been addressed in compliance with provisions of Statewide Planning Goal 10, the Metropolitan Housing Rule, Metro UGMFP Titles 1 and 12, Washington County CFP Policies 21-23, the Washington County Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan, and the County’s CDC Sections 304 and 306. Of note, the proposal appears to present opportunity for the County to encourage additional needed housing as directed by Statewide Planning Goal 10 and the Metropolitan Housing Rule, potentially while retaining existing onsite attached housing that the applicant points to as comparatively affordable, in an area that appears suited to additional density. See more detailed findings for applicable criteria/regulations below.

1. Statewide Planning Goal 10 – Housing Staff: Goal 10 requires that buildable lands suitable for residential use be inventoried, and that and plans shall encourage needed housing units in adequate numbers, at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households. The Washington County CFP implements Statewide Planning Goals. Findings of compliance with CFP Policies 21, 22, and 23, below, address aspects of Goal 10 that are pertinent to this plan amendment.

2. Metropolitan Housing Rule – OAR 660-0007 This rule states: The purpose of this division is to ensure opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of land within the metropolitan Portland (Metro) urban growth boundary, to provide greater certainty in the development process and so to reduce housing costs. OAR 660-007-0030 through 660- 007-0037 are intended to establish by rule regional residential density and mix standards to measure Goal 10 housing compliance for cities and counties within the Metro urban growth boundary, and to ensure the efficient use of residential land within the regional

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 20 of 30

UGB consistent with Goal 14 urbanization. Oar 660-007-0035 implements the commission's determination in the Metro UGB acknowledgment proceedings that region wide, planned residential densities must be considerably in excess of the residential density assumed in Metro's UGB findings. The new construction density and mix standards and the criteria for varying from them in this rule take into consideration and also satisfy the price range and rent level criteria for needed housing as set forth in ORS 197.303…

660-007-0030 New Construction Mix (1) Jurisdictions… must either designate sufficient buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50 percent of new residential units to be attached single family housing or multiple family housing or justify an alternative percentage based on changing circumstances…

Applicant: See page 26 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Per acre, the existing R-9 designation of the subject site allows only 4 to 5 units, while the requested R-24 District allows 19 to 24. Both districts allow for attached housing. Consistent with the above Rule, as R-24 the site could accommodate an additional three units, helping to provide for adequate numbers of needed housing in an efficient manner by utilizing underdeveloped urban property where public facilities and services are already available.

In accord with residential mix provisions of the Rule and its directive regarding opportunities to accommodate 50 percent of new residences as attached units, narrative states that the applicant intends to maintain the current duplex, and if the requested R-24 designation is approved, develop more attached housing. The applicant indicates that this would result in a greater supply of more affordable housing, consistent with the aim of the Rule to reduce housing costs. Staff can’t confirm that this would be the case. Somewhat dependent on the scale of proposed housing, however, shared wall construction can require less construction material than detached housing, helping to constrain construction costs and potentially translating to more affordable pricing for residents.

Consistent with the above Rule, staff agrees that approval of this plan amendment would improve the County’s opportunities to efficiently utilize existing urban land to accommodate additional density and needed attached housing, and through such measures to potentially reduce housing costs.

3. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP) Title 1 – Housing Capacity This title states: The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban form and a “fair-share” approach to meeting regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity except as provided in Section 3.07.120.

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 21 of 30

Applicant: See page 23 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: The duplex that has occupied the property since 1920 constitutes site development to maximum density for the R-9 district. Consistent with Title 1, the plan amendment to designate the site R-24 could accommodate an increase by three units. Narrative states that the property owner intends to maintain the existing duplex and thereby minimize impacts to existing more affordable housing stock. The applicant further notes that introducing additional attached units within an existing neighborhood and efficient use of existing infrastructure achieves compact urban form consistent with this Title.

Staff finds proposed designation of the site as R-24 would allow the County to increase housing capacity and encourage compact urban form in accord with Title 1.

Title 12 – Protection of Residential Neighborhoods This title states: Existing neighborhoods are essential to the success of the 2040 Growth Concept. The intent of Title 12 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan is to protect the region’s residential neighborhoods. The purpose of Title 12 is to help implement the policy of the Regional Framework Plan to protect existing residential neighborhoods from air and water pollution, noise and crime and to provide adequate levels of public services.

Applicant: See page 24 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: As described earlier, the 2040 Growth Concept Plan identifies the area including the subject site and immediate vicinity as a Neighborhood. As the sole R-9 property in this area, with a duplex that pre-dates the neighborhood itself, the site is something of an island between existing low and high density development. The subject lot sits within the northeast corner of an R-24 parent parcel developed with apartments. Like the apartment site, it shares only its northern border (approximately 100 feet) with R-5 lands. Staff notes that the existing R-24 land abuts the northerly R-5 properties for a distance of over 380 feet. Designation of the subject site as R-24, and addition of up to three more attached units, would better reflect the higher-density neighborhood context that has developed south of existing R-5 lands. At the same time, retention of the onsite duplex as intended would maintain a feature of the existing older neighborhood. Though not a requirement at the plan amendment stage, CDC Section 411 will apply at the time of development review, prescribing screening and buffering where the site meets residential R-5 property.

In accord with Title 12, the subject site is set back from the intersection of nearby arterial roads, affording some buffering from their potential noise and air quality impacts. The applicant has submitted Service Provider Letters regarding ability to provide adequate service to the site following approval of the proposed plan amendment. These are addressed under section IV.E of this report – Other Public

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 22 of 30

Facilities and Services, below. The attached Transportation Report (Attachment A) indicates that public road facilities can adequately serve the site if developed as R-24.

4. Washington County CFP Policy 21 – Housing Affordability This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to encourage the housing industry to provide an adequate supply of affordable housing for all households in the unincorporated urban county area.

Applicant: See page 12 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: In accord with Policy 21, the applicant suggests that this proposal to change the designation of the subject site from R-9 to R-24 is well-suited to increase the supply of affordable housing for the following reasons (paraphrased below):

 The property owners intend to maintain the existing duplex, which is built at the southwest edge of the property, allowing development of additional attached units on the vacant portion of the site. Maintaining existing affordable housing is key to any jurisdiction's housing affordability plan because new construction tends be more costly even if units are small or attached.  Due to its potential for more efficient use of building materials, new attached housing is generally more affordable to build than new detached housing, and may therefore be provided at more affordable rates to lower-income residents.  The location of the site makes optimal use of nearby existing services, including transit, schools, commercial areas, and several large employers. Staff agrees that reduction in travel distances/costs contributes to affordability of a residential location overall.

Based on the above and findings under section IV.C.2 of this report – Metropolitan Housing Rule, OAR staff concurs that the proposed plan amendment creates opportunity for retention and construction of housing that meets the intent of Policy 21.

Policy 22 – Housing Choice and Availability This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to encourage the housing industry to make a variety of housing types available, in sufficient quantities, to the housing consumer.

Applicant: See page 12 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: The existing neighborhood includes developed R-24 and R-5 lots, as well as more dense development to the west in the city of Beaverton. Together, these provide for a mix of housing types. As previously noted, approving the requested change from R-9 to R-24 would increase onsite housing potential from a maximum of two to a maximum of five dwellings. Moreover, the increase would support opportunities for the housing industry to meet housing needs in a location near commercial and transit

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 23 of 30

amenities that is well suited to R-24 development. Staff finds that this plan amendment is consistent with Policy 22.

Policy 23 – Housing Condition This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock in unincorporated areas.

Applicant: See page 13 of the applicant’s narrative. Staff: As previously noted, consistent with this policy, the applicant intends to maintain an existing onsite duplex and if this plan amendment is approved, seek approval to add three additional units elsewhere on the site.

Policy 35 – Residential Conservation This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to encourage a reduction in residential energy consumption and increase opportunities for production of energy from alternative sources…

The County will: *** d. Encourage clustering and common-wall dwelling types that reduce the amount of outside wall surface per dwelling unit. e. Locate high-density housing in proximity to labor-intensive industries.

Applicant: See pages 14 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Consistent with Policy 35, the applicant suggest that the proposed plan amendment would allow for additional density in the form of clustered and common-wall units onsite, near major employers including Nike, Tektronix, and nearby commercial areas. Staff agrees that this proposal provides the County with opportunity to encourage housing of a type and in a setting consistent with the intent of Policy 35.

5. Washington County Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan Overview Related to housing, Community Plan language states: Large-sized residential lots located near a Collector [are]… good location[s] for increased density if the land is also relatively free from steep slopes or drainage hazards… Frequently, lots in these areas already are developed with detached homes…

South of Sunset Highway, on both the east and west sides of Highway 217… few opportunities exist for the introduction of medium or high density housing. The Community Plan recommends increased density in this sector… only [where] adjacent to major transportation routes and shopping areas.

Applicant: See page 17 of the applicant’s narrative.

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 24 of 30

Staff: The subject site is a relatively flat lot that does not appear to include mapped flood hazards. As previously described, it includes an existing duplex which, according to the applicant, is located on the property such that its removal would not be necessary to accommodate additional units. The site is south of Sunset Highway and well west of Highway 217, near major transportation routes, the light rail line, shopping, services, and employment. Based on Overview provisions above, these features of the site and vicinity afford a rare opportunity for increased residential density in the planning area. Please see section IV.B.3, earlier in this report, for more detailed related findings.

6. Washington County CDC Section 304 – R-9 (Residential 7 to 9 Units per Acre) Section 304-1 (Intent and Purpose) states: The R-9 District is intended to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for areas designated for residential development at no more than nine (9) units per acre and no less than seven (7) units per acre… The purpose of the R-9 District is to provide areas for detached and attached houses on small lots as well as areas for manufactured homes on individual lots and manufactured dwelling subdivisions and parks.

Section 306 (R-24 – Residential 19 to 24 Units per Acre) Section 306-1 (Intent and Purpose) states: The intent and purpose of the R-24 District is to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for areas designated for residential development of no more than twenty-four (24) units per acre and no less than nineteen (19) units per acre…

Applicant: See pages 21 and 22 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Without a plan amendment, the subject 0.22-acre R-9 site is already developed to its maximum allowable density due to the existing duplex [0.22 acres x 9 units maximum = 1.98 homes (rounds to two homes)].

Assuming approval of the requested plan amendment to designate the site R-24, up to three additional residential units could be developed for a total of five, maximum [0.22 acres x 24 units maximum = 5.28 homes (rounds to five homes)].

As previously discussed, the subject site is the only R-9 property in the vicinity and as such is inconsistent with land use designations and development patterns in the surrounding community. The proposed R-24 designation would provide for more consistent density and development within all land south of existing R-5 development, while creating additional opportunity for needed housing.

D. Transportation 1. State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) – OAR 660-012-0060 2. Statewide Planning Goal 12 – Transportation 3. Washington County CFP: Policy 32 – Transportation Policy 39 – Land Use Conservation

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 25 of 30

4. Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) Goals 1 – Safety Goal 2 – Economic Viability Goal 3 – Livability Goal 5 – Mobility Goal 6 – Accessibility Goal 7 – Connectivity Goal 8 – Active Transportation 5. Washington County Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan

Transportation – Summary of Findings Staff finds that transportation-related requirements have been addressed in compliance with provisions of the State TPR, Statewide Planning Goal 12, Washington County CFP Policies 32 and 39, the Washington County TSP, and the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan. See more detailed findings for applicable criteria/regulations below and within the attached Transportation Report (Attachment A) and TIS (Attachment B).

1. State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) – OAR 660-012-0060

Applicant: See pages 25 and 26 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: The TPR requires analysis of the impact of a proposed plan amendment on the planned transportation system in an area to determine whether the proposal will significantly affect it.

The Transportation Report (“Attachment A”), incorporated into this staff report by reference, contains the required analysis and associated findings of compliance with applicable provision of the TPR, including findings that the proposed plan amendment will not significantly affect a transportation facility as defined in OAR 660-012-0060. Based on those findings, staff concludes that the proposed plan amendment is consistent with the TPR.

2. Statewide Planning Goal 12: Transportation Staff: Goal 12 is intended to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The Washington County CFP implements Statewide Planning Goals. Findings of compliance with CFP Policy 32 (Transportation), below, address this Goal.

3. Washington County CFP Policy 32 – Transportation This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to regulate the existing transportation system and to provide for the future transportation needs of the County through the development of a transportation plan as an element of the comprehensive plan.

Applicant: See page 13 of the applicant’s narrative.

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 26 of 30

Staff: Policy 32 directs the development of a Transportation Plan as an element of the overall County Comprehensive Framework Plan. The County has developed a Transportation System Plan (TSP) that meets both the intent of Policy 32 and more recent Regional, State and Federal transportation planning requirements. This TSP is updated as needed to maintain compliance with such requirements. Conformance with applicable standards and requirements of the TSP is discussed within Attachment A (Transportation Report), incorporated into this staff report by reference. Based on findings therein, staff finds that this request complies with Policy 32.

Policy 39 – Land Use Conservation This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to develop land use strategies which take advantage of density and location to reduce the need to travel, increase access to transit, increase the use of alternate modes of transportation, including transit…

Applicant: See page 14 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: As addressed previously in section IV.B – Land Use Planning, the proposed land use designation change from R-9 to R-24 could ultimately allow for three additional households convenient to public transportation. Its location near employment, shopping, recreation, and services further facilitates use of alternate transportation modes including bicycling and walking. Additional findings of compliance with Policy 39 are included above in this report under section IV.B – Land Use Planning, and within Attachment A (Transportation Report), incorporated into this staff report by reference. Based on findings within this staff report and Attachment A, staff finds that this request complies with Policy 39.

4. Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) Goals 1 – Safety Goal 2 – Economic Viability Goal 3 – Livability Goal 5 – Mobility Goal 6 – Accessibility Goal 7 – Connectivity Goal 8 – Active Transportation

Applicant: See pages 15-17 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Findings of compliance with the above TSP Goals are included within Attachment A (Transportation Report), incorporated into this staff report by reference. Based on findings therein, staff finds that this request complies with applicable TSP provisions.

5. Washington County Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan Overview Related to the transportation system, Community Plan language states: …Several major roadways traverse the area… as a conduit through which significant numbers of regional work and shopping trips are made each day to and from other

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 27 of 30

points in the county… The Community Plan recommends increased density in this sector of the planning area only adjacent to major transportation routes.

Applicant: See page 17 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: The proposed plan amendment, which would result in an allowance for increased density at the subject site, appears to be supported by the above Community Plan provisions. As previously noted, it has ready access to major transportation routes and light rail. For three new households, it could potentially reduce trips distances and facilitate travel by bicycle and on foot to employment, shopping, and services as well. Based on these findings and as determined within Attachment A (Transportation Report), this plan amendment proposal appears consistent with above noted transportation elements of the Community Plan. (See also, other sections of this report: (See also, other sections of this report: IV.B – Land Use Planning, and C – Housing, regarding the Overview section of the community plan).

General Design Elements General Design Element 5 states: All new subdivisions, attached unit residential developments, and commercial developments shall provide for pedestrian/bicycle pathways which allow public access thorough or along the development and connect adjacent developments and/or shopping areas, schools, public transit and park and recreation sites.

Applicant: See page 18 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: The subject site is a relatively small parcel (0.22 acres), with only about 93 feet of site frontage along SW Briggs Road. Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) #02030361, prepared by Current Planning staff in response to the applicant’s request, notes that a neighborhood circulation and redevelopment plan will be required at such time as the applicant submits a development application. At that time, provisions of CDC Sections 408 and 605-2.3.A(6) will apply, which address connectivity and circulation requirements noted above. (The above noted TIS is included as Attachment B).

General Design Element 12 states: New development shall dedicate right-of-way for road extensions and alignments as indicated in Washington County’s Transportation System Plan or Community Plans…

Applicant: See page 19 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: TIS #02030361 (Attachment B) indicates that adequate right-of-way already exists along the subject site frontage.

General Design Element 15 states: The county shall emphasize non-auto (transit, bicycle and pedestrian) measures as an interim solution to circulation issues. These measures shall be used to facilitate access to transit centers.

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 28 of 30

Applicant: See page 20 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: TIS #02030361 (Attachment B) indicates that construction a half-street improvement will be required as a condition of approval at the time of development review, along the site frontage of SW Briggs Road. Half-street improvements include a required sidewalk. As previously noted, any other circulation requirements will be addressed at the time of development review as well.

E. Other Public Facilities and Services 1. Statewide Planning Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services 2. Washington County CFP: Policy 14 – Managing Growth Policy 30 – Public Facilities and Services (Schools) Policy 31 – Public Facilities and Services (Fire and Police Protection) Policy 33 – Quantity and Quality of Recreational Facilities and Services 3. Washington County Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan

Other Public Facilities and Services – Summary of Findings Staff finds that requirements regarding public facilities and services have been addressed in compliance with provisions of Statewide Planning Goal 11, Washington County CFP Policies 14, 30, 31 and, and the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan. See more detailed findings for applicable criteria/regulations below.

1. Statewide Planning Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services Staff: Goal 11 is calls for development of a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for development. The Washington County CFP implements Statewide Planning Goals. Findings of compliance with CFP Policies 14, 30, 31 and 33, below, address this Goal.

2. Washington County CFP Policy 14 – Managing Growth This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to manage growth in unincorporated lands within the UGB such that public facilities and services are available to support orderly urban development. This policy applies to urban unincorporated lands…

Staff: The applicant has submitted required letters completed by the following service providers, indicating ability to provide adequate service to the site:  Washington County Sheriff,  Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R),  Beaverton School District #48,  Clean Water Services,  Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD), and  Tualatin Valley Water. Additionally, the applicant has completed and submitted the County’s Transit Availability Statement form.

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 29 of 30

Based on the above, the proposed plan amendment does not affect availability of noted services. Service provider letters, however, will again be required at the time of development review, to ensure adequate service based on a specific development proposal. This plan amendment appears to satisfy Policy 14.

Policy 30 – Public Facilities and Services (Schools) This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to coordinate with school districts and other educational institutions in planning future school facilities to ensure proper location and safe access for students.

Applicant: See page 13 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: The County requires Plan Amendment applicants to obtain and submit a Service Provider Letter from the appropriate school district. As previously noted, the applicant has submitted one from Beaverton School District. It projects generation of one additional elementary school student if three additional residential units are ultimately built. The letter states that the school district expects to have capacity for the added student. When a development application is submitted for the subject site, a letter from the school district will again be required and will address any potential impacts particular to a proposed development. Staff finds that the proposed plan amendment complies with Policy 30.

Policy 31 – Public Facilities and Services (Fire and Police Protection) This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to work closely with appropriate service providers to assure that all areas of the county continue to be served with an adequate level of fire and police protection.

Applicant: See page 13 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Service provider letters from TVF&R and the Washington County Sheriff’s Department state that these providers can adequately serve the property. The proposed plan amendment complies with Policy 31.

Policy 33 – Quantity and Quality of Recreational Facilities and Services This policy states: It is the policy of Washington County to work to provide residents and businesses in the urban unincorporated area with adequate park and recreation facilities and services and open space.

Applicant: See page 33 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: The service provider letter completed by THPRD states that the subject property is in THPRD’s district and that service level is adequate to serve the site following the proposed plan amendment. The proposed plan amendment complies with Policy 33.

Casefile No. 17-403-PA Staff Report for the December 20, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing Page 30 of 30

3. Washington County Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan: Overview Related to services, Community Plan language states: Natural resources should be preserved to provide a living/working environment which offers ample recreation opportunity and reasonable safety from natural hazards.

Applicant: See page 17 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: The Community Plan does not identify a natural resource on the subject site, however as noted above, THPRD states that the property is in their district and that adequate recreational services can be provided. (See also, other sections of this report: IV.B – Land Use Planning, C – Housing, and D – Transportation, regarding the Overview section of the community plan).

V. OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Staff: Evidence and analysis provided by the applicant, and findings within this report and its attachments, demonstrate that the proposed plan amendment conforms adequately to applicable provisions of Statewide Planning Goals, the Transportation Planning Rule, the Metropolitan Housing Rule, the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, the Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, Transportation System Plan (TSP), Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan, and Community Development Code.

VI. RECOMMENDATION

Staff: Based on the findings in the submitted plan amendment application, this report and its attachments, staff recommends that the proposed plan amendment be APPROVED.

S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\Plan Amendments\Casefiles\2017\17-403-PA_Briggs R9 to R24\Staff Report\17_403_PA_SR.docx

Attachment A

November 2, 2017

TRANSPORTATION REPORT CASE FILE NO. 17-403-PA

Applicant: Wentland, John L & Shirley J Rev Trust Location: 2285 SW Briggs Road, Beaverton, OR 97005 2289 SW Briggs Road, Beaverton, OR 97005

Site is located approximately 325 feet north of the intersection of SW Briggs Road and SW Jenkins Road. Tax Map/Lot: 1S109BA Tax Lot 06200 Site Size: 0.22 acres Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the applicable transportation planning policies and rules and submits the following findings and recommendations.

FINDINGS A. General: 1. The proposed quasi-judicial plan amendment would change the plan designation on a 0.22 acre site from Residential 9 units per acre (R-9) to Residential 24 units per acre (R-24) designation. 2. The current access to the subject property is located via SW Briggs Road, approximately 350 feet north of SW Jenkins Road. SW Briggs Road is a local street and planned to remain a two-lane roadway. 3. The following standards are applicable to this request and are addressed in this staff report: a. OAR 660, Division 12, Oregon Transportation Planning Rule:  Section 060 - Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments b. Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan (CFP):  Policy 1 (f)  Policy 32 – Transportation  Policy 39 – Land Use Conservation c. Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) Goals:  Goal 1 – Safety  Goal 2 – Economic Viability  Goal 3 – Livability  Goal 5 – Mobility  Goal 6 – Accessibility  Goal 7 – Connectivity  Goal 8 – Active Transportation  Goal 10 - Funding Attachment A Casefile 17-403-PA Plan Amendment Transportation Report Page 2 of 6

4. Washington County Cedar Hills – Cedar Mill Community Plan

B. Oregon Transportation Planning Rule 1. The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0060, requires an analysis of the impact of a proposed plan amendment on the planned transportation system to determine whether the proposal will ‘significantly affect’ the planned transportation system in the area. 2. Pursuant to the OAR, the proposed plan amendment would ‘significantly affect’ SW Briggs Road, SW Jenkins Road and/or the surrounding transportation network if it does any of the following as measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP (year-2035):  Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;  Change the standards implementing a functional classification system;  Allow types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; or  Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the Transportation System Plan or comprehensive plan; or  Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.

3. Considering the criteria above, in order to determine if a plan amendment will result in a ‘significant impact’ on transportation facilities, the County generally requires a comparative analysis of a reasonable worst-case development of a site under current and proposed land use designations. A ‘reasonable worst case’ development would be one with the greatest potential trip generation based on a reasonable build-out of the site over the planning horizon of the adopted TSP. 4. The county evaluates roadway performance based on the volume to capacity ratios (V/C), measured at signalized intersections. Table 3.1 in the Washington County TSP Users’ Guide sets forth the applicable performance criteria for plan amendment requests. For this plan amendment, the nearest traffic signal is located at SW Meridian Street/SW Jenkins Road. The site is expected to contribute less than 10% to total intersection volumes at that intersection. 5. County staff provided an estimate of peak hour and daily traffic under a reasonable worst-case scenario as compared to existing zoning. The analysis is based on build-out of the subject site with a four to five unit multi-family residential development. The existing zoning analysis is based on one single- family dwelling. A total of 38 additional daily trips are anticipated as a result of the proposed zoning. 6. No changes in functional classification are proposed or required in order to accommodate the proposed plan amendment. Furthermore, the plan amendment will not affect the standards implementing the functional

Attachment A Casefile 17-403-PA Plan Amendment Transportation Report Page 3 of 6

classification system as set forth in Objective 5.3 of the County’s TSP nor will it significantly affect the capacity of the surrounding transportation network. Based upon these facts, staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level-of-service for affected transportation facilities, consistent with Section 060 of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule. 7. Considering the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendment will not significantly affect the capacity or levels of travel on the nearby transportation network as defined in the Transportation Planning Rule.

C. Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan For The Urban Area This plan amendment request is subject to Policy 1.f. from the County’s Comprehensive Framework Plan (CFP). This policy states the following:

A quasi-judicial plan amendment to the Community Plan Maps, including the implementing tax maps, shall be granted only if the Review Authority determines that the proponent has demonstrated that the proposed designation conforms to the locational criteria of the Comprehensive Framework Plan, the Community Plan Overview and the sub-area description and design elements, complies with the regional plan, and demonstrates that the potential service impacts of the designation will not impact the built or planned service delivery system in the community. This is a generalized analysis that in no way precludes full application of the Growth Management Policies to development permits as provided in the Code.

STAFF: As it pertains to transportation, this policy requires the County to analyze the existing transportation system as well as the planned system. With the proposed plan amendment, the future performance of nearby transportation facilities will comply with the adopted performance thresholds of the TSP, based on its relatively low estimated trip generation impacts (less than 10% impact to closest signalized intersection). Based on this, the plan amendment will be consistent with Policy 1.f. of the CFP with regard to transportation.

This plan amendment request is subject to Policy 32: Transportation, from the County’s Comprehensive Framework Plan (CFP). This policy establishes the development of a Transportation System Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan.

STAFF: As it pertains to transportation, this policy requires the County to ensure that the plan amendment is consistent with the TSP. With the proposed plan amendment, compliance with the TSP is addressed previously (CFP Policy 1.f) and in section D. below. Based on this, the plan amendment will be consistent with Policy 32 of the CFP with regard to transportation.

This plan amendment request is subject to Policy 39: Land Use Conservation, from the County’s Comprehensive Framework Plan (CFP). This policy requires the County to develop land use strategies which reduce the need for travel, increase access to transit and increase the use of alternate modes of transportation.

Attachment A Casefile 17-403-PA Plan Amendment Transportation Report Page 4 of 6

STAFF: The plan amendment increases density in an area in close proximity (less than one mile) to a significant number of employment and commercial uses. Access to transit is less than ¼ mile for one route and about ½ mile for a second route. Based on this, the plan amendment will be consistent with Policy 39 of the CFP.

D. Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) The proposed plan amendment is subject to several objectives from the County’s TSP, which are listed and addressed below.

Goal 1: Safety Provide a safe transportation system for all users. Objective 1.3 Review all development proposals, including those within incorporated areas, to continue the safe operation of county roads. STAFF: Significant impacts on capacity or roadway safety are not anticipated under the proposed plan designation. Any traffic safety impacts associated with potential future development on the subject property will be subject to the traffic safety regulations set forth in the Community Development Code and Resolution and Order 86-95 which implement Objective 1.3. As explained above in this report, the proposed plan amendment is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the capacity or level of service on any of the transportation facilities in the impact area. The nearest SPIS intersection is SW Murray Boulevard/SW Jenkins Road, which is almost 2,000 feet from the site. Therefore, the proposal does not conflict with Goal 1.

Goal 2: Economic Viability Provide a reliable transportation system that enhances the economic health of Washington County. Objective 2.3 Invest in transportation to encourage economic development. STAFF: Any future development on the subject property will be subject to the regulations set forth in the Community Development Code. In addition, any transportation improvements required as part of a proposed development on the site would contribute to the economic health of Washington County. Additional housing at this location, with associated frontage improvements (such as sidewalks), will improve access to nearby employment centers (e.g. Nike, Tektronix and Cedar Hills Crossing). Any transportation-related improvements required at the time of development would enhance access to these employment/shopping areas, thereby enhancing the economic health of the County. The proposal therefore does not conflict with Goal 2.

Attachment A Casefile 17-403-PA Plan Amendment Transportation Report Page 5 of 6

Goal 3: Livability Preserve and enhance Washington County’s quality of life for all residents, workers and visitors. Objective 3.1 Strive to maintain and enhance the livability of existing and future communities and neighborhoods. STAFF: Any future development on the subject property will be subject to the regulations set forth in the Community Development Code. In addition, any transportation improvements required as part of a proposed development on the site would contribute to the neighborhood’s livability. Additional housing at this location will improve access to nearby employment centers and regional investments in transit. The proposal therefore does not conflict with Goal 3.

Goal 5: Mobility Promote the efficient and cost–effective movement of people, goods and services by all modes. Objective 5.3 Utilize the Interim Washington County Motor Vehicle Performance Measures to manage congestion. Objective 5.4 Encourage Travel Demand Management efforts to reduce total vehicle travel, and vehicle travel during peak hours. STAFF: The proposed plan amendment will not result in significant degradation of the planned motor vehicle system nor will it affect the Functional Classification of any nearby street or highway, nor result in land uses that are inconsistent with those identified in the TSP. Therefore, the amendment will be consistent with the performance measures set forth in the strategies for implementation of Goal 5.

Goal 6: Accessibility Provide safe and efficient access to destinations within Washington County. Objective 6.1 Provide an accessible, multi-modal transportation system that meets the needs of the community. STAFF: Future development on the site will likely be required to provide sidewalk improvements, which will help complete gaps in the pedestrian system, thereby contributing to an interconnected multi-modal network. The proposal does not conflict with Goal 6.

Goal 7: Connectivity Provide improved and new transportation connections within and between developed and developing areas. Objective 7.1 Provide an interconnected transportation network that offers multi-modal travel choices and minimizes out-of-direction travel for all modes. STAFF: Due to the site’s small size, there is no opportunity to create new automobile or pedestrian/bicycle connections in conjunction with the plan amendment or future development of the site. However, future development on the site will likely be required to provide sidewalk improvements, which will contribute toward multi-modal travel choices. The proposal does not conflict with Goal 7.

Attachment A Casefile 17-403-PA Plan Amendment Transportation Report Page 6 of 6

Goal 8: Active Transportation Create a built environment that encourages safe, comfortable and convenient active transportation options that are viable for all users. Objective 8.1 Provide a network of “complete streets” that safely and comfortably accommodate road users of all ages and abilities, including people walking, cycling, using mobility devices, taking transit and driving. STAFF: Future development on the site will likely be required to provide sidewalk improvements, which will contribute toward multi-modal travel choices. The proposal is consistent with Goal 8.

Goal 10: Funding Seek adequate and reliable funding for transportation. Objective 10.2 Promote equitable, sustainable and fiscally responsible transportation system funding. STAFF: If development occurs on the affected property, it will be subject to payment of the appropriate Transportation Development Tax (TDT) toward future capacity improvements. Payment of the TDT is consistent with the objectives included under Goal 10.

E. Washington County Cedar Hills – Cedar Mill Community Plan The plan amendment proposal is consistent with transportation elements of the Washington County Cedar Hills – Cedar Mill Community Plan.

CONCLUSION Based on the findings in this report, staff concludes that this plan amendment proposal will NOT “significantly affect” a transportation facility as defined in OAR 660, Division 12 and is consistent with the Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan, the Washington County Transportation System Plan and the Washington County Cedar Hills – Cedar Mill Community Plan.

S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\Plan Amendments\Casefiles\2017\17-403-PA_Briggs R9 to R24\17_403_PA_TranspoReport_111717.doc

Attachment B

WASHINGTON COUNTY Dept. of Land Use & Transportation Planning & Development Services Current Planning 155 N. 1st Avenue, #350-13 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Ph. (503) 846-8761 Fax (503) 846-2908 http://www.co.washington.or.us TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT #02030361

THIS TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AND MAY SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR TRANSPORTATION-RELATED FINDINGS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE REVIEW AUTHORITY REGARDING THE PROPOSED LAND USE APPLICATION. ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS MAY BE IDENTIFIED DURING THE APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS. THIS TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT IS VALID FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE ISSUANCE DATE; HOWEVER, THE PROPERTY WILL BE SUBJECT TO CHANGES IN COUNTY REGULATIONS THAT BECOME EFFECTIVE AFTER THE ISSUANCE DATE BUT PRIOR TO LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL.

139TH DATE ISSUED: 8/31/17 ALIBHAI ST

MURRAY AVE COMMUNITY PLAN: RD 144TH Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill DOMINO Subarea: Cedar Hills ST A.S.C.: None EXISTING LAND USE DISTRICT(S): R9 (Residential 7-9 units/acre) AVE BRIGGS CT

139th ASSESSOR MAP: TAX LOT NUMBER(S): BRIGHTWOOD 1S1 09 BA 06200 ST AVE BURLWOOD SITE SIZE: .22 acres RD

ST SITE ADDRESS: 2285 SW Briggs Road ECOLE BRIGGS LOCATION: On the west side of SW Briggs Road approximately 400 feet north of its JENKINS CASTLEWOOD intersection with SW Jenkins Road. RD EXISTING USE: One, single family dwelling (possible duplex without land use review/approval) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Plan Amendment from R9 to R24 with a subsequent 5 lot subdivision. STAFF CONTACT: Ryan Marquardt, Transportation Planner, 503-846-3872. ITEM I OUTLINES APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT. IF THE PLAN AMENDMENT IS APPROVED, ITEMS II THROUGH XI OUTLINE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS.

I. PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA: A. Pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060, the following comments are intended to address the overall transportation system impacts of this plan amendment proposal. These comments should not be used in conjunction with the Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 2 of 18 actual, immediate, traffic impacts that may be associated with a request for development approval of a specific use on this site. Questions regarding these Long Range Transportation Planning Section comments should be directed to Dyami Valentine, Senior Planner, at (503) 846-3821. 1. If approved, this proposal would re-designate tax lot 6200 on Map 1S109BA from Residential 9 units per acre (R-9) to Residential 24 units per acre (R- 24). 2. The tax lot currently supports a duplex. According to the applicant’s request, anticipated future redevelopment of the parcel would result in 4-5 unit multi- family residential development, if the proposed plan amendment is approved. 3. The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0060 requires an analysis of the impact of a proposed plan amendment on the planned transportation system. To address this requirement, the county requires a comparative analysis of a reasonable ‘worst case’ development of the site under current and proposed land use designations. 4. The county’s intersection performance standards are found in Washington County’s interim motor vehicle performance measures (below) as adopted in the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP). For the purposes of addressing the TPR requirements, a ‘reasonable worst case’ development would be one with the greatest potential trip generation based on a reasonable build-out of the site under the existing and proposed plan designations, even if the site is not currently or planned to be developed at the maximum reasonably allowed (considering the plan designations) intensities. The analysis shall be prepared by a traffic engineer licensed in Oregon and evaluate the twenty-year forecast conditions.

Interim Washington County Motor Vehicle Performance Measures

MAXIMUM VOLUME TO CAPACITY (V/C) RATIO STANDARDS Location2 AM/PM Peak Two-hour Period Target1 Acceptable1 Performance Measures3 Performance Measures3 First Hour4 Second Hour4 First Hour4 Second Hour4 Regional Centers Town Centers .99 .9 .99 .99 Main Streets (E) (D) (E) (E) Station Communities .9 .9 .99 .9 Other Urban Areas (D) (D) (E) (D) .9 .9 .9 .9 Rural Areas (D) (D) (D) (D) 1 For development review purposes, these performance standards will be used in assessing safety improvements. For plan amendment purposes, if a plan amendment is predicted to exceed the acceptable performance standard, the performance on applicable facilities will not be allowed to deteriorate further, and mitigation may be necessary. For project development purposes, these performance standards will be used to evaluate conditions beyond the transportation plan’s planning horizon, as appropriate. 2 For location reference see 2040 Growth Concept Design Types Map. 3 Vehicle performance shall be determined by using volume to capacity ratios. Volume to Capacity equivalencies to Level of Service (LOS) are as follows: LOS C = V/C of 0.8 or lower; LOS D = V/C of 0.81 to 0.9; LOS E = V/C of 0.91 to 0.99. Further discussion of vehicle performance is provided in the Technical Appendix.

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 3 of 18

4 First Hour is defined as the highest hour of the day. Second hour is defined as the hour following the first hour.

5. Traffic from potential future development that contributes less than 10% to total intersection volumes is typically considered ‘not significant’ in evaluating plan amendments. The applicant should provide sufficient information to substantiate the lack of significant traffic impacts (or evaluate the significant impacts should they exist) for both the near-term and at the end of the planning period under both existing and proposed plan designations. 6. The applicant is responsible for providing appropriate findings of fact that are responsive to the relevant provisions of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule as well as the County Plan provisions (see below). 7. The Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, Policy 1.f states: A quasi-judicial plan amendment to the Community Plan Maps, including the implementing tax maps, shall be granted only if the Review Authority determines that the proponent has demonstrated that the proposed designation conforms to the locational criteria of the Comprehensive Framework Plan, the Community Plan Overview and the sub-area description and design elements, complies with the regional plan, and demonstrates that the potential service impacts of the designation will not impact the built or planned service delivery system in the community. This is a generalized analysis that in no way precludes full application of the Growth Management Policies to development permits as provided in the Code. As it pertains to transportation, this policy requires the County to analyze the existing transportation system as well as the planned system. The applicant must provide sufficient information regarding reasonable worst case development on the subject property under the existing and proposed plan designations (see above) in order for the county to make adequate findings under this policy. 8. In addition to Policy 1.f., the applicant is required to address all relevant Goals, Objectives, and Strategies in the Washington County 2014 Transportation System Plan, effective on December 1, 2014. Transportation planning staff finds that the following Goals and Objectives are particularly relevant to this request (Strategies can be found as subsets within the applicable Objectives), and should be addressed in the plan amendment application:

Goal 1: Safety Provide a safe transportation system for all users. Objective 1.3 Review all development proposals, including those within incorporated areas, to continue the safe operation of county roads. Goal 3: Livability Preserve and enhance Washington County’s quality of life for all residents, workers and visitors.

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 4 of 18

Objective 3.1 Strive to maintain and enhance the livability of existing and future communities and neighborhoods. Goal 5: Mobility Promote the efficient and cost–effective movement of people, goods and services by all modes. Objective 5.3 Utilize the Interim Washington County Motor Vehicle Performance Measures to manage congestion. Objective 5.4 Encourage Travel Demand Management efforts to reduce total vehicle travel, and vehicle travel during peak hours. Goal 6: Accessibility Provide safe and efficient access to destinations within Washington County. Objective 6.1 Provide an accessible, multi-modal transportation system that meets the needs of the community. Goal 7: Connectivity Provide improved and new transportation connections within and between developed and developing areas. Objective 7.1 Provide an interconnected transportation network that offers multi-modal travel choices and minimizes out-of-direction travel for all modes. Goal 8: Active Transportation Create a built environment that encourages safe, comfortable and convenient active transportation options that are viable for all users. Objective 8.1 Provide a network of “complete streets” that safely and comfortably accommodate road users of all ages and abilities, including people walking, cycling, using mobility devices, taking transit and driving. Goal 10: Funding Seek adequate and reliable funding for transportation. Objective 10.2 Promote equitable, sustainable and fiscally responsible transportation system funding.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS

660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments

(1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 5 of 18

(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);

(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or

(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.

(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;

(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or

(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.

(2) If a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, then the local government must ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the facility measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP through one or a combination of the remedies listed in (a) through (e) below, unless the amendment meets the balancing test in subsection (2)(e) of this section or qualifies for partial mitigation in section (11) of this rule. A local government using subsection (2)(e), section (3), section (10) or section (11) to approve an amendment recognizes that additional motor vehicle traffic congestion may result and that other facility providers would not be expected to provide additional capacity for motor vehicles in response to this congestion.

(a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility.

(b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities, improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; such amendments shall include a funding plan or mechanism consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service will be provided by the end of the planning period.

(c) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of the transportation facility.

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 6 of 18

(d) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development agreement or similar funding method, including, but not limited to, transportation system management measures or minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall, as part of the amendment, specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be provided.

(e) Providing improvements that would benefit modes other than the significantly affected mode, improvements to facilities other than the significantly affected facility, or improvements at other locations, if the provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written statement that the system-wide benefits are sufficient to balance the significant effect, even though the improvements would not result in consistency for all performance standards.

(3) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may approve an amendment that would significantly affect an existing transportation facility without assuring that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of the facility where:

(a) In the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities, improvements and services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be adequate to achieve consistency with the identified function, capacity or performance standard for that facility by the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP;

(b) Development resulting from the amendment will, at a minimum, mitigate the impacts of the amendment in a manner that avoids further degradation to the performance of the facility by the time of the development through one or a combination of transportation improvements or measures;

(c) The amendment does not involve property located in an interchange area as defined in paragraph (4)(d)(C); and

(d) For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing for the identified mitigation improvements or measures are, at a minimum, sufficient to avoid further degradation to the performance of the affected state highway. However, if a local government provides the appropriate ODOT regional office with written notice of a proposed amendment in a manner that provides ODOT reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement into the record of the local government proceeding, and ODOT does not provide a written statement, then the local government may proceed with applying subsections (a) through (c) of this section.

(4) Determinations under sections (1)–(3) of this rule shall be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments.

(a) In determining whether an amendment has a significant effect on an existing or planned transportation facility under subsection (1)(c) of this rule, local governments shall rely on existing transportation facilities and services and on

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 7 of 18

the planned transportation facilities, improvements and services set forth in subsections (b) and (c) below.

(b) Outside of interstate interchange areas, the following are considered planned facilities, improvements and services:

(A) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are funded for construction or implementation in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a locally or regionally adopted transportation improvement program or capital improvement plan or program of a transportation service provider.

(B) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are authorized in a local transportation system plan and for which a funding plan or mechanism is in place or approved. These include, but are not limited to, transportation facilities, improvements or services for which: transportation systems development charge revenues are being collected; a local improvement district or reimbursement district has been established or will be established prior to development; a development agreement has been adopted; or conditions of approval to fund the improvement have been adopted.

(C) Transportation facilities, improvements or services in a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) area that are part of the area's federally- approved, financially constrained regional transportation system plan.

(D) Improvements to state highways that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when ODOT provides a written statement that the improvements are reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period.

(E) Improvements to regional and local roads, streets or other transportation facilities or services that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when the local government(s) or transportation service provider(s) responsible for the facility, improvement or service provides a written statement that the facility, improvement or service is reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period.

(c) Within interstate interchange areas, the improvements included in (b)(A)–(C) are considered planned facilities, improvements and services, except where:

(A) ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing of mitigation measures are sufficient to avoid a significant adverse impact on the Interstate Highway system, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section; or

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 8 of 18

(B) There is an adopted interchange area management plan, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in that plan and which are also identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section.

(d) As used in this section and section (3):

(A) Planned interchange means new interchanges and relocation of existing interchanges that are authorized in an adopted transportation system plan or comprehensive plan;

(B) Interstate highway means Interstates 5, 82, 84, 105, 205 and 405; and

(C) Interstate interchange area means:

(i) Property within one-quarter mile of the ramp terminal intersection of an existing or planned interchange on an Interstate Highway; or

(ii) The interchange area as defined in the Interchange Area Management Plan adopted as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan.

(e) For purposes of this section, a written statement provided pursuant to paragraphs (b)(D), (b)(E) or (c)(A) provided by ODOT, a local government or transportation facility provider, as appropriate, shall be conclusive in determining whether a transportation facility, improvement or service is a planned transportation facility, improvement or service. In the absence of a written statement, a local government can only rely upon planned transportation facilities, improvements and services identified in paragraphs (b)(A)-(C) to determine whether there is a significant effect that requires application of the remedies in section (2).

(5) The presence of a transportation facility or improvement shall not be a basis for an exception to allow residential, commercial, institutional or industrial development on rural lands under this division or OAR 660-004-0022 and 660-004-0028.

(6) In determining whether proposed land uses would affect or be consistent with planned transportation facilities as provided in sections (1) and (2), local governments shall give full credit for potential reduction in vehicle trips for uses located in mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly centers, and neighborhoods as provided in subsections (a)–(d) below;

(a) Absent adopted local standards or detailed information about the vehicle trip reduction benefits of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development, local governments shall assume that uses located within a mixed-use, pedestrian- friendly center, or neighborhood, will generate 10% fewer daily and peak hour trips than are specified in available published estimates, such as those provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual that do not specifically account for the effects of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development. The 10% reduction allowed for by this section shall be available

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 9 of 18

only if uses which rely solely on auto trips, such as gas stations, car washes, storage facilities, and motels are prohibited;

(b) Local governments shall use detailed or local information about the trip reduction benefits of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development where such information is available and presented to the local government. Local governments may, based on such information, allow reductions greater than the 10% reduction required in subsection (a) above;

(c) Where a local government assumes or estimates lower vehicle trip generation as provided in subsection (a) or (b) above, it shall assure through conditions of approval, site plans, or approval standards that subsequent development approvals support the development of a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly center or neighborhood and provide for on-site bike and pedestrian connectivity and access to transit as provided for in OAR 660-012-0045(3) and (4). The provision of on-site bike and pedestrian connectivity and access to transit may be accomplished through application of acknowledged ordinance provisions which comply with 660-012-0045(3) and (4) or through conditions of approval or findings adopted with the plan amendment that assure compliance with these rule requirements at the time of development approval; and

(d) The purpose of this section is to provide an incentive for the designation and implementation of pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use centers and neighborhoods by lowering the regulatory barriers to plan amendments which accomplish this type of development. The actual trip reduction benefits of mixed-use, pedestrian- friendly development will vary from case to case and may be somewhat higher or lower than presumed pursuant to subsection (a) above. The Commission concludes that this assumption is warranted given general information about the expected effects of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development and its intent to encourage changes to plans and development patterns. Nothing in this section is intended to affect the application of provisions in local plans or ordinances which provide for the calculation or assessment of systems development charges or in preparing conformity determinations required under the federal Clean Air Act.

(7) Amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations which meet all of the criteria listed in subsections (a)–(c) below shall include an amendment to the comprehensive plan, transportation system plan the adoption of a local street plan, access management plan, future street plan or other binding local transportation plan to provide for on-site alignment of streets or accessways with existing and planned arterial, collector, and local streets surrounding the site as necessary to implement the requirements in OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b) and 660-012-0045(3):

(a) The plan or land use regulation amendment results in designation of two or more acres of land for commercial use;

(b) The local government has not adopted a TSP or local street plan which complies with OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b) or, in the Portland Metropolitan Area, has not complied with Metro's requirement for street connectivity as contained in Title 6, Section 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; and

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 10 of 18

(c) The proposed amendment would significantly affect a transportation facility as provided in section (1).

(8) A "mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly center or neighborhood" for the purposes of this rule, means:

(a) Any one of the following:

(A) An existing central business district or downtown;

(B) An area designated as a central city, regional center, town center or main street in the Portland Metro 2040 Regional Growth Concept;

(C) An area designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as a transit oriented development or a pedestrian district; or

(D) An area designated as a special transportation area as provided for in the Oregon Highway Plan.

(b) An area other than those listed in subsection (a) above which includes or is planned to include the following characteristics:

(A) A concentration of a variety of land uses in a well-defined area, including the following:

(i) Medium to high density residential development (12 or more units per acre);

(ii) Offices or office buildings;

(iii) Retail stores and services;

(iv) Restaurants; and

(v) Public open space or private open space which is available for public use, such as a park or plaza.

(B) Generally include civic or cultural uses;

(C) A core commercial area where multi-story buildings are permitted;

(D) Buildings and building entrances oriented to streets;

(E) Street connections and crossings that make the center safe and conveniently accessible from adjacent areas;

(F) A network of streets and, where appropriate, accessways and major driveways that make it attractive and highly convenient for people to walk

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 11 of 18

between uses within the center or neighborhood, including streets and major driveways within the center with wide sidewalks and other features, including pedestrian-oriented street crossings, street trees, pedestrian- scale lighting and on-street parking;

(G) One or more transit stops (in urban areas with fixed route transit service); and

(H) Limit or do not allow low-intensity or land extensive uses, such as most industrial uses, automobile sales and services, and drive-through services.

(9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a local government may find that an amendment to a zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility if all of the following requirements are met.

(a) The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan map designation and the amendment does not change the comprehensive plan map;

(b) The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP; and

(c) The area subject to the zoning map amendment was not exempted from this rule at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660- 024-0020(1)(d), or the area was exempted from this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area.

(10) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may amend a functional plan, a comprehensive plan or a land use regulation without applying performance standards related to motor vehicle traffic congestion (e.g. volume to capacity ratio or V/C), delay or travel time if the amendment meets the requirements of subsection (a) of this section. This section does not exempt a proposed amendment from other transportation performance standards or policies that may apply including, but not limited to, safety for all modes, network connectivity for all modes (e.g. sidewalks, bicycle lanes) and accessibility for freight vehicles of a size and frequency required by the development.

(a) A proposed amendment qualifies for this section if it:

(A) Is a map or text amendment affecting only land entirely within a multimodal mixed-use area (MMA); and

(B) Is consistent with the definition of an MMA and consistent with the function of the MMA as described in the findings designating the MMA.

(b) For the purpose of this rule, “multimodal mixed-use area” or “MMA” means an area:

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 12 of 18

(A) With a boundary adopted by a local government as provided in subsection (d) or (e) of this section and that has been acknowledged;

(B) Entirely within an urban growth boundary;

(C) With adopted plans and development regulations that allow the uses listed in paragraphs (8)(b)(A) through (C) of this rule and that require new development to be consistent with the characteristics listed in paragraphs (8)(b)(D) through (H) of this rule;

(D) With land use regulations that do not require the provision of off-street parking, or regulations that require lower levels of off-street parking than required in other areas and allow flexibility to meet the parking requirements (e.g. count on-street parking, allow long-term leases, allow shared parking); and

(E) Located in one or more of the categories below:

(i) At least one-quarter mile from any ramp terminal intersection of existing or planned interchanges;

(ii) Within the area of an adopted Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) and consistent with the IAMP; or

(iii) Within one-quarter mile of a ramp terminal intersection of an existing or planned interchange if the mainline facility provider has provided written concurrence with the MMA designation as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

(c) When a mainline facility provider reviews an MMA designation as provided in subparagraph (b)(E)(iii) of this section, the provider must consider the factors listed in paragraph (A) of this subsection.

(A) The potential for operational or safety effects to the interchange area and the mainline highway, specifically considering:

(i) Whether the interchange area has a crash rate that is higher than the statewide crash rate for similar facilities;

(ii) Whether the interchange area is in the top ten percent of locations identified by the safety priority index system (SPIS) developed by ODOT; and

(iii) Whether existing or potential future traffic queues on the interchange exit ramps extend onto the mainline highway or the portion of the ramp needed to safely accommodate deceleration.

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 13 of 18

(B) If there are operational or safety effects as described in paragraph (A) of this subsection, the effects may be addressed by an agreement between the local government and the facility provider regarding traffic management plans favoring traffic movements away from the interchange, particularly those facilitating clearing traffic queues on the interchange exit ramps.

(d) A local government may designate an MMA by adopting an amendment to the comprehensive plan or land use regulations to delineate the boundary following an existing zone, multiple existing zones, an urban renewal area, other existing boundary, or establishing a new boundary. The designation must be accompanied by findings showing how the area meets the definition of an MMA. Designation of an MMA is not subject to the requirements in sections (1) and (2) of this rule.

(e) A local government may designate an MMA on an area where comprehensive plan map designations or land use regulations do not meet the definition, if all of the other elements meet the definition, by concurrently adopting comprehensive plan or land use regulation amendments necessary to meet the definition. Such amendments are not subject to performance standards related to motor vehicle traffic congestion, delay or travel time.

(11) A local government may approve an amendment with partial mitigation as provided in section (2) of this rule if the amendment complies with subsection (a) of this section, the amendment meets the balancing test in subsection (b) of this section, and the local government coordinates as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

(a) The amendment must meet paragraphs (A) and (B) of this subsection or meet paragraph (D) of this subsection.

(A) Create direct benefits in terms of industrial or traded-sector jobs created or retained by limiting uses to industrial or traded-sector industries.

(B) Not allow retail uses, except limited retail incidental to industrial or traded sector development, not to exceed five percent of the net developable area.

(C) For the purpose of this section:

(i) “Industrial” means employment activities generating income from the production, handling or distribution of goods including, but not limited to, manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, processing, storage, logistics, warehousing, importation, distribution and transshipment and research and development.

(ii) “Traded-sector” means industries in which member firms sell their goods or services into markets for which national or international competition exists.

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 14 of 18

(D) Notwithstanding paragraphs (A) and (B) of this subsection, an amendment complies with subsection (a) if all of the following conditions are met:

(i) The amendment is within a city with a population less than 10,000 and outside of a Metropolitan Planning Organization.

(ii) The amendment would provide land for “Other Employment Use” or “Prime Industrial Land” as those terms are defined in OAR 660- 009-0005.

(iii) The amendment is located outside of the Willamette Valley as defined in ORS 215.010.

(E) The provisions of paragraph (D) of this subsection are repealed on January 1, 2017.

(b) A local government may accept partial mitigation only if the local government determines that the benefits outweigh the negative effects on local transportation facilities and the local government receives from the provider of any transportation facility that would be significantly affected written concurrence that the benefits outweigh the negative effects on their transportation facilities. If the amendment significantly affects a state highway, then ODOT must coordinate with the Oregon Business Development Department regarding the economic and job creation benefits of the proposed amendment as defined in subsection (a) of this section. The requirement to obtain concurrence from a provider is satisfied if the local government provides notice as required by subsection (c) of this section and the provider does not respond in writing (either concurring or non-concurring) within forty-five days.

(c) A local government that proposes to use this section must coordinate with Oregon Business Development Department, Department of Land Conservation and Development, area commission on transportation, metropolitan planning organization, and transportation providers and local governments directly impacted by the proposal to allow opportunities for comments on whether the proposed amendment meets the definition of economic development, how it would affect transportation facilities and the adequacy of proposed mitigation. Informal consultation is encouraged throughout the process starting with pre- application meetings. Coordination has the meaning given in ORS 197.015 and Goal 2 and must include notice at least 45 days before the first evidentiary hearing. Notice must include the following:

(A) Proposed amendment.

(B) Proposed mitigating actions from section (2) of this rule.

(C) Analysis and projections of the extent to which the proposed amendment in combination with proposed mitigating actions would fall short of being

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 15 of 18

consistent with the function, capacity, and performance standards of transportation facilities.

(D) Findings showing how the proposed amendment meets the requirements of subsection (a) of this section.

(E) Findings showing that the benefits of the proposed amendment outweigh the negative effects on transportation facilities.

II. PREVIOUS LAND USE REVIEW: A. Conditions of Approval of casefile 15-215-PLA may continue to apply to this site. III. DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTION: A. Two situs addresses are assigned to this site. In reviewing prior permits on record for this site, it appears that a duplex may exist on this site without land use review or approval. Please note, TDT, CET and SDC allowance will be granted for one dwelling only. IV. TRIP GENERATION: A. Based on ITE Code 210 (Single Family Detached): 1. The proposed development will generate a total of 47.6 ADT (5 dwelling units). 2. The current use of the property, One, single-family dwelling (ITE Code 210), generates 9.52 average daily vehicular trips (ADT). B. The proposed development will generate a net total of 38.08 ADT with consideration given for the existing dwelling if demolished within 10 years prior to issuance of a replacement building permit. V. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS/REQUIREMENTS: A. SW Briggs Road 1. SW Briggs Road (County Road #993) is designated as a local street per the Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014, requiring up to 50 feet of right-of-way (25 feet from centerline) and 32 feet of paving. 2. A review of the tax map and subdivision plat for Furlong Park No.2 indicates 20 feet (from centerline) of right-of-way currently exists along the site’s frontage of SW Briggs Road. No additional right-of-way dedication is required based on a County L-2 road designation. 3. CDC Section 501-8.1 B.(4) requires the construction a half-street improvement (as defined in CDC 501-8.8 A.) to County L-2 standard along the site’s frontage of SW Briggs Road. B. Adequate Access to Nearby Collector or Arterial Road 1. CDC Section 501-8.1 B.(2) requires the applicant to improve substandard roadways providing access to the site (between the subject site and the nearest adequate collector or arterial roadway likely to attract the highest traffic volume

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 16 of 18

from the proposed development), to provide a minimum 5-year paved wearing surface and structural life to a 22-foot width. 2. Staff believes the majority of trips to and from the subject site will be via SW Jenkins Road; therefore, SW Briggs Road shall be improved to this standard from the subject site frontage to SW Jenkins Road. 3. The roadways to SW Jenkins Road meet the standards of CDC Section 501-8.1 B.(2). C. Other Transportation Requirements: 1. The Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD) is a special assessment district that collects revenues used to maintain public roads within the Urban Growth Boundary. This site is already in the URMD, as required by Community Development Code (CDC) Section 501-8.1 D. 2. Additional pedestrian and/or utility easements outside of the right-of-way may be required in accordance with the Transportation Plan and Road Design and Construction Standards. 3. CDC Sections 501-7.1 B., 501-8.2 C., 605-2.3 C., and 605-2.4 D. require design and installation of street lighting in accordance with the Washington County Roadway Illumination Standards on public roads. Formation of a Service District for Lighting (SDL) will be required for any illumination required on public Local or Neighborhood Route roads (and may be required for improvements to Collector or Arterial roads). VI. ACCESS: A. Proposed points of access to the site were not marked by the applicant in the field. B. SW Briggs Road is currently designated as a Local road. Per CDC Section 501-8.5 B.(1), the minimum access spacing standards are: 1. Access will not be permitted within twenty-five (25) feet of an intersecting street. 2. Access points near an intersection with a Collector or Arterial road shall be located beyond the influence of standing queues of the intersection, which may result in an access spacing greater than specified above. C. Individual access to lots within the development shall meet the requirements of Section 501-8.5 B.(1). D. All existing access, except any access approved through the development review process, must be closed. VII. SIGHT DISTANCE: A. CDC Section 501-8.5. F. and Washington County Road Design and Construction Standards Section 130.080 require adequate intersection sight distance at a site's access to a County or public road and at all intersections of County or public roads, in accordance with the standards of CDC 501-8.5. F. Note: The applicant must demonstrate adequate sight distance is feasible prior to a development application being deemed complete by the County. A completed “Traffic Impact Statement’ or “Sight Distance Evaluation” (prepared

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 17 of 18

by county Staff) or a ‘Preliminary Certification of Sight Distance” (prepared by a licensed Oregon Professional Engineer) are available options to demonstrate adequate sight distance is feasible. B. CDC Section 501-8.5 F.(4) establishes the required sight distance for an access to a County road and at all intersections of County or public roads is equal to ten times the vehicular speed of the road. C. SW Briggs Road is posted 25 MPH adjacent to the subject site, therefore required sight distance at the access to SW Briggs Road is 250 feet. 1. Sight distance along the site’s frontage north and south along SW Briggs Road will be at least 250 feet upon removal of vegetation on site and in the existing right-of-way.

D. Precise preliminary field measurements at the access was not conducted by Washington County staff because the proposed access point was not flagged by the applicant.

E. Per CDC Section 418-4.7, Residential lots or parcels shall maintain a clear vision area with no sight obscuring fence or wall (does not include retaining wall) more than three (3) feet in height, measured from finished grade, within a fifteen (15) by fifteen (15) foot triangle along a driveway. A clear vision area shall be measured from the property line, sidewalk, or easement for public travel, whichever is closest to the fence line.

F. Upon completion of the of the subdivision / development, including any improvements identified in the Preliminary Sight Distance Certification, the applicant will be required to provide Final Certification of Sight Distance at the access to SW Briggs Road to confirm adequate intersection sight distance has been achieved. Certification must be prepared by a licensed Oregon professional engineer in accordance with CDC 501-8.5 F. Note: No development will be finaled until adequate sight distance is available at all intersections on and abutting the development site in accordance with the Washington County Community Development Code. VIII. TRANSPORTATION SAFETY REVIEW AND IMPROVEMENTS:

A. The County Traffic Engineer may perform a Traffic Safety Review and may establish requirements for additional developer-provided safety improvements, potentially including off-site improvements. All required improvements must be completed prior to occupancy of any proposed development. IX. NEIGHBORHOOD CIRCULATION: A. Submit a neighborhood circulation and redevelopment plan with the development application as required by CDC Sections 408 and 605-2.3 A (6). X. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PERMITS: A. If land use approval is granted for the subject development proposal, obtain a Facility Permit from the Department of Land Use and Transportation Current Planning Section (Assurances) for construction of all required public improvements. XI. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT TAX:

Attachment B Casefile 17-403-PA Traffic Impact Statement Page 18 of 18

A. The Transportation Development Tax (TDT) will be assessed at issuance of a building permit when the permit will result in the addition of vehicle trips. Please refer to the TDT Ordinance (Washington County A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 691, modified by Ordinance No. 729) for additional information.

Refer to the following link to access Washington County Road Design/Construction Standards: www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/Divisions/Engineering/ConsultantResources/road-design-standards.cfm

02030361.doc/tlh/RM 8/31/17 S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\Plan Amendments\Casefiles\2017\17-403-PA_Briggs R9 to R24\17_403_TIS.docx