Agenda Packet

MEETING AGENDA

DATE: Monday, October 12, 2020 TIME: 12:00 – 1:30 p.m. LOCATION: Zoom virtual meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89694569833

Call-in (audio-only) option: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 896 9456 9833

1. Visitors Comments – If you are interested in providing verbal public (5 min) comment during the virtual meeting, please write to Sarah Lundin at [email protected] by 9 a.m. Monday, October 12. Submitting comments in writing is preferred; those submitted via email by 9 a.m. Monday, October 12 will be shared with the Committee, and will be described during the meeting.

2. Introductions/Roll Call (5 min)

 3. Consideration of WCCC Meeting Summary for September 14, 2020 Action (5 min)

 4. TDT Expenditure Request Action (5 min) Purpose: Consider a recommendation for a Washington County TDT expenditure for preliminary design work for Grabhorn Road Presenter: Erin Wardell, Washington County Joe Younkins, Washington County

 5. MSTIP Opportunity Fund Request Action (5 min) Purpose: Consider a recommendation for a match for Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF) Discretionary grants to expand Tualatin shuttle service and to fund bus stop amenities for urban and rural shuttles in Washington County in target areas Presenter: Erin Wardell, Washington County

 Material included in packet 155 N First Avenue, Suite 250, MS 16 * Material will be distributed at the meeting Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 # Material available electronically and/or in advance of the meeting phone: 503-846-4530 email: [email protected] Page 2 WCCC Agenda October 12, 2020

 6. Metro Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Assessment Discussion Information (30 min) Purpose: Review and discuss results of Metro’s jurisdictional transfer study Presenter: Margi Bradway, Metro Kirsten Pennington, WSP More Info: Metro jurisdictional transfer assessment website

 7. Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge Information (20 min) Purpose: Share and seek input on the preferred alternative Presenter: Mike Pullen, Multnomah County More Info: Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge webpage

* 8. MPAC Agenda Information (5 min) Presenter: Mayor Peter Truax, City of Forest Grove

* 9. JPACT Agenda Information (5 min) Presenter: Mayor Denny Doyle, City of Beaverton

 10. Other Business and Agency Updates Information (5 min) • Cornelius Pass Road jurisdictional transfer More Info: ODOT Cornelius Pass Road website • Oregon Transportation Commission Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) investment scenarios More Info: Oregon STIP website • Washington County Transit Development Plan priorities public comment period More Info: Transit Development Plan website Survey link: Transit Development Plan Survey • WCCC letter to LCDC regarding HB 2001

Washington County Coordinating Committee UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE* 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM Monday, November 16 Monday, December 14 * Meetings may be held virtually (online) due to COVID-19. Check www.co.washington.or.us/wccc one week prior to the meeting date for meeting details.

POLICY GROUP MEETING SUMMARY September 14, 2020

Voting Members in attendance

Denny Doyle, City of Beaverton Pete Truax, City of Forest Grove Frank Bubenik, City of Tualatin Roy Rogers, Washington County Gery Schirado, City of Durham (WCCC Chair) Jason Snider, City of Tigard Steve Callaway, City of Hillsboro Jef Dalin, City of Cornelius Teri Lenahan, City of North Plains Keith Mays, City of Sherwood Tim Knapp, City of Wilsonville Ken Gibson, City of King City

Non-Voting Members in attendance

Craig Dirksen, Metro Emerald Bogue, Port of Portland Matt Freitag, ODOT

Other Attendees

Anna Slatinsky, City of Beaverton Julia Hajduk, City of Sherwood Anne Buzzini, Metro Kim Armstrong, Washington County Anne Debbaut, DLCD Leigh Crabtree, City of Beaverton Brian Martin, City of Beaverton Marc San Soucie, City of Beaverton Chelsey (no last name provided) Mark Ottenad, City of Wilsonville Chris Deffebach, Washington County Michael Nemeyer, Washington County Colin Cooper, City of Hillsboro Michael Weston, City of King City Don Odermott, City of Hillsboro Paul Morrison, City of Tualatin Dwight Brashear, SMART Sarah Lundin, Washington County Ethan Stuckmayer, DLCD Sean Edging, 3J Consulting Erin Wardell, Washington County Stephen Roberts, Washington County Gordon Howard, DLCD (WCCC Secretary) Jamie Stasny, Clackamas County Theresa Cherniak, Washington County Jean Senechal Biggs, City of Beaverton Victor Sin, Metro Jeff Gudman

Stephen Roberts confirmed a quorum was present and Commissioner Rogers convened the WCCC meeting at 12:02 p.m.

1. Visitors Comments None

155 N First Avenue, Suite 250, MS 16 Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: 503-846-4530 email: [email protected] Page 2 WCCC Meeting Summary September 14, 2020

2. Introductions Commissioner Rogers acknowledged the members who had signed on to the virtual Zoom platform. 3. Consideration of WCCC Minutes for August 17, 2020 Motion made to approve the minutes as presented; motion seconded. Vote: With all present members voting in favor, the motion passed unanimously. 4. TDT Expenditure Request Commissioner Rogers introduced the TDT expenditure request from Tualatin and asked if anyone would like a presentation of the proposed expenditure before voting. Hearing none, Commissioner Rogers asked for a motion to approve.

Motion was made to support the TDT expenditure request, motion seconded. Vote: with all members present voting in favor, the motion passed unanimously. 5. HB 2001 & 2003 Rulemaking Updates Gordon Howard of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) recapped House Bill (HB) 2001 and HB 2003 rulemaking to date, including: • In July, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) approved the rules implementing HB 2001’s requirement to allow duplexes on all lots and parcels that are zoned residential and allow for detached single-family dwellings in medium cities of more than 10,000 and less than 25,000 located outside of the Metro area. Those rules must be implemented by June 30, 2021. • In August, LCDC approved provisions under which all cities and counties can seek an Infrastructure-Based Time Extension Request (IBTER) for HB 2001 implementation. IBTERs must be submitted by medium cities by Dec. 31, 2020 and by large/Metro cities and counties by June 30, 2021. • In late September, LCDC will hold a hearing on draft HB 2001 middle housing requirements for large cities—those with a population of 25,000 or more plus all counties and cities in the Portland Metro area with a population over 1,000. • LCDC is expected to adopt the large/Metro city and county requirements in Nov. 2020. These rules will implement HB 2001’s requirement to allow duplexes on all lots or parcels allowing a detached single-family residence, as well as the requirement to allow triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes and cottage clusters “in areas” zoned for residential use that allow detached single-family dwellings. • LCDC will continue to get updates on planning requirements for housing needs assessments and housing production strategies as required by HB 2003. Ethan Stuckmayer, DLCD, noted that the WCCC was previously provided an overview of the housing initiatives legislation intended to offer more housing choice (HB 2001) and housing production (HB 2003) earlier in the year (Jan. 2020). He began with a description of the rules for implementing HB 2001 for large/Metro cities and counties. The proposed rules: Page 3 WCCC Meeting Summary September 14, 2020

• Define middle housing types and configuration. • Define areas of applicability. • Provide two options for compliance: o A model code with specific standards that agencies can apply directly or in parts. o Minimum compliance standards that provide some flexibility in demonstrating consistency with HB 2001 intent. • Allow for regulation of siting and design if standards are clear and objective and do not incur unreasonable cost or delay for middle housing. • Establish parking standards. There is also a “Performance Metric” approach that provides for some flexibility to set minimum lot size and maximum density requirements, subject to the following: • Minimum percentages of lots must allow triplexes (80%), quadplexes (70%), townhomes (60%) and cottage clusters (50%) • At least 75% of lots in each census block group must allow at least one type of middle housing other than duplexes Large/Metro cities and counties must adopt their implementation rules by June 30, 2022. WCCC members raised the following comments and questions regarding the draft HB 2001 rules: • Question about how infrastructure constraints are defined in determining eligible parcels for middle housing. DLCD staff responded that a constraint is when there is no known remediation. For other deficiencies that can be remediated, the IBTER process could be considered. • Question about applicability to new areas added to the UGB which remain in County control until annexed into cities for development. These areas are unique because there is generally little infrastructure today and the plans for development include middle housing, though not on every lot. DLCD staff responded that these areas fall into requirements for either “master planned communities” or future development lands [County staff note: Draft rules at 660-46-0010 2.c. excludes “lands that are not incorporated and that are zoned under an interim zoning designation that maintains the land’s potential for planned urban development” such as Washington County FD-10 and FD-20 districts]. • Question confirming the compliance dates for cities and counties in the Metro area is June 30, 2022; cities and counties not in compliance will apply the model code directly. • Question if the percentages required for the various middle housing types under the performance metric approach can be flexible and how the percentages were derived. DLCD staff indicated the current percentages are included in the Page 4 WCCC Meeting Summary September 14, 2020

proposed rules and are open to comment prior to approval by LCDC in November. DLCD staff indicated the percentages are based on a statewide analysis of average lot size and suitability of the middle housing types on different lot sizes for the duplex, triplex and quadplex middle housing types. Performance metrics for townhomes and cottage clusters are based on policy judgement. • Question why the percentages were not tied to proximity of transit stops/stations or other services. DLCD responded that the middle housing requirements are intended to be flexible for future land uses and not tied to existing land use. • Comment that the parking requirement of one space per unit is too low and that while that may be appropriate for dense urban areas, households in Cornelius and other suburban areas have limited transit access and multiple workers who need cars to get to jobs. This has led to significant on-street parking problems. DLCD staff responded that developers are allowed to provide more parking with city approval but that the parking requirements are fixed at a maximum of one space per unit. • Question if jurisdictions will be allowed to charge developers for additional costs of upgrading water, sewer and other infrastructure. DLCD staff clarified that jurisdictions may still charge SDCs and other development costs per their regulations. • Comment that cities and counties will need to coordinate to promote higher- density development in areas where more urban services are available, and county will need to coordinate with cities in areas subject to Urban Planning Area Agreements (UPAAs). Related question on how to promote coordination. County staff clarified that county and cities will coordinate pursuant to the UPAAs and will have the opportunity to review and comment on each other’s ordinances prior to adoption. • Comment that requirements for middle housing in new urban areas or master planned areas is different than in infill areas. Increased density as infill in existing unincorporated urban areas may make future annexation less attractive. DLCD staff responded that the requirement that 75% of all census block groups need to allow at least one type of middle housing should reduce concentrations of middle housing development. • Comment that the rules are oriented to existing urbanized areas and a different approach is needed for new urban areas which include a mix of middle housing types – just not on every lot or parcel. Planning for the new urban areas considers special features such as topography and location and considers how to provide infrastructure at lower cost which is a benefit. Page 5 WCCC Meeting Summary September 14, 2020

• Other members expressed agreement that master planned communities for new urban areas are already designed to support middle housing just not on every lot. The new rule is confusing the master planning process. • DLCD responded that the rule proposes separate provisions for urban areas and for master plan areas with more than 20 acres. Master plan areas are allowed to set overall density and plan within it. Staff encouraged comments on the requirements for master plan areas. • Comment expressing concern of allowing fourplexes everywhere and question about what analysis has been done to estimate how much middle housing to expect and where. DLCD staff responded that no analysis is available to estimate how much middle housing to expect. DLCD staff pointed to calculations based on Portland’s incentives for accessory dwelling units that show it would take 300 years to reach an ADU on every lot at the current rate of development with the incentives. • Comment of appreciation for the addition of the performance metrics approach but recommended that the percentages required for triplexes and quadplexes should be reduced and other metrics added such as allowing triplexes on all lots and allowing fourplexes on all corner lots. The need for greater flexibility was echoed with other comments. • Comment about concerns for unintended consequences from the middle housing redevelopment on existing naturally occurring affordable housing. For example, more affordable existing single-family rental homes may be replaced with middle housing that will have higher rents or purchase prices. Comment was echoed that affordable single-family housing is often rental housing and the renters will not benefit from the redevelopment. As an example, Hillsboro has seen one house torn down and replaced with six new units at a cost of $450,000 each which is unaffordable to lower-income renters who may have been displaced. Ethan continued with a status update on HB 2003 rulemaking: • LCDC adopted of the compliance schedule for housing needs assessments for cities. • LCDC adopted the housing production strategy. • Regional housing needs analysis will be completed by first quarter 2021. After further discussion, the members agreed to submit a letter summarizing the comments brought up today to the Land Conservation and Development Commission for the Sept. 25 hearing on the proposed HB 2001 rules. County staff will prepare a draft comment letter for review by the members before the end of the week. Members requested a copy of the DLCD staff presentation. County staff agreed to distribute the presentation and post it to the WCCC webpage. Page 6 WCCC Meeting Summary September 14, 2020

6. MPAC Agenda MPAC is meeting Sept. 23. No agenda is available yet. 7. JPACT Agenda JPACT meets Sept. 17. The agenda includes Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) amendments, Metro Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) amendments and updates on Metro’s jurisdictional transfer study, Metro’s congestion pricing study and ODOT’s Tolling Program.

8. Other Business and Agency Updates County staff reported that: • Metro’s Jurisdictional Transfer Study would be out for public comment beginning Sept. 15, following a Metro Council work session briefing. Metro staff will present the study to the WCCC in October. • Public comment period for the I-205 Tolling Project was extended to Sept. 23. The Board of Commissioners will be considering a comment letter at their Sept. 15 meeting. • The Oregon Transportation Commission would be defining investment scenario options for the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) for FY 24-27. This could be a topic for future WCCC discussion as the Region 1 Area Commission on Transportation (ACT) and the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) will be asked to comment. Matt Freitag let the group know that the trunnion repair project on the Interstate Bridge has been postponed by one week due to the fires.

Commissioner Rogers adjourned the meeting at 1:45 p.m.

______Stephen Roberts, Secretary Washington County Coordinating Committee

LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION MEMORANDUM Planning and Development Services

To: Washington County Coordinating Committee From: Erin Wardell, Principal Planner Date: October 2, 2020 Subject: Transportation Development Tax (TDT) Expenditure Request

Washington County requests the following expenditure of TDT funds:

As described in the attached memo, Washington County requests approval for expenditure of $100,000 in TDT funds for Grabhorn Road (TDT Project List #1091 – Grabhorn Road from Farmington to the UGB) for preliminary design as part of a coordinated effort with Willamette Water Supply System (WWSS).

County staff confirmed that this project is eligible for TDT expenditure. The WCCC TAC recommended approval for the project at their October 1, 2020 meeting.

Attachments: Washington County Expenditure Request Exhibit

Department of Land Use & Transportation • Planning and Development Services 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 12, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: 503-846-4530 • www.co.washington.or.us/lut

LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION MEMORANDUM Planning and Development Services

To: Washington County Coordinating Committee From: Erin Wardell, Principal Planner Date: October 2, 2020 Re: MSTIP Opportunity Fund Request – ODOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF) Discretionary and Intercommunity grant programs

Action Consider and act on the two requests described below to serve as local match for the Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF) Discretionary and Intercommunity grant programs for the 2022-2023 funding cycle. Summary of the requests are attached. The WCCC TAC recommended approval of both requests at the October 1, 2020 meeting.

Request Washington County is seeking MSTIP Opportunity Funds to use as match. Total potential commitment of MSTIP Opportunity Funds is $121,000.

Sponsor(s) Project Total MSTIP Opp. Fund STIF Request Project Cost Request Washington County Community connector shuttle $325,000 $65,000 $260,000 stop enhancements (20% match) Washington County Bridgeport to Stafford Connector $862,650 $56,000* $775,000 Shuttle (10% match) Totals $1,187,650 $121,000 $895,000

*Washington County portion of project match

Opportunity Fund Usage To date, a total of over $7.6 million in Opportunity Funds have leveraged over $43 million in state, federal and private dollars. One measure of the program’s success is that for every $1 in Opportunity Fund, WCCC members are capturing nearly $6 in private, state and federal funding. The current Opportunity Fund balance is approximately $4.8 million. There are seven pending applications that could obligate an additional $1.2 million in MSTIP Opportunity Funds.

The following table summarizes the amount of MSTIP Opportunity Funds requested and awarded annually since 2012, excluding projects where jurisdictions removed candidates during the request process or ultimately did not submit a grant application after receiving WCCC approval to leverage Opportunity Funds.

Department of Land Use & Transportation • Planning and Development Services 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 12, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: 503-846-4530 • www.co.washington.or.us/lut Page 2 MSTIP Opportunity Fund Request October 2, 2020

MSTIP Opportunity Funds Year Amount Requested Amount Awarded Success Rate (# of Projects) (# of Projects) (Funding/# of Projects) 2012 $2,285,000 (8) $368,000 (2) 16% / 25% 2013 $1,400,000 (4) $1,000,000 (2) 71% / 50% 2014 $3,091,000 (4) $1,591,000 (3) 51% / 75% 2015 $3,010,000 (6) $750,000 (3) 25% / 50% 2016 $2,521,125 (11) $1,480,125 (6) 59% / 55% 2017 $100,000 (2) $100,000 (2) 100% / 100% 2018 $1,330,800 (3) $1,240,000 (2) 93% / 67% 2019 $3,748,139 (11) $1,144,776 (8) 31% / 72% 2020 $3,160,000 (8)* $0 (0) 0% / 0% Total $20,646,064 (57) $7,673,901 (28) 39% / 56% * WCCC approved requests awaiting award notification.

MSTIP Opportunity Fund Guiding Principles The purpose of the MSTIP Opportunity Fund is to leverage federal, state and other funding opportunities as they arise. The Opportunity Fund is flexible and can be applied to a variety of different projects and activities, including (but not limited to) pedestrian, bicycle, transit and travel demand management projects. The Opportunity Fund is intended to be used as local minimum cash match. The Opportunity fund is not intended to be used for over-match or gap funding. The MSTIP Opportunity Fund is available on a continual basis through Fiscal Year 2022-23. The following are the Guiding Principles endorsed by the WCCC and approved by the Board: 1. Allocate no more than $1.5 million per year to keep funds available for future opportunities. 2. Consider opportunities to enhance and/or include innovative design with the intent of constructing a “signature” project. 3. Take into account the amount of local match when considering and soliciting projects. 4. Illustrate the project benefits to the countywide transportation system. 5. Improve transportation mobility. 6. Consider geographic equity.

Attachments Project Descriptions Community connector shuttle stop enhancements

Project Description

The Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation (LUT), in partnership with Ride Connection, Inc., plans to pursue a Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF) Discretionary grant to implement stop improvements at up to 17 priority locations to enhance both the safety and consumer experience of community connector services operating throughout both urban and rural Washington County. This grant funding will allow Ride Connection to improve its bus stop infrastructure, which will increase the access and mobility of riders who depend on Ride Connection to get to work, education, medical appointments, social, shopping and access to other needed services. Research on the impacts of community bus services on local communities indicate that people are more likely to use public transportation services if they are able to walk or bike to the stop as well as having a comfortable and safe place to wait for the bus. Therefore, bus stops themselves present a valuable opportunity to build not only the visibility of Ride Connection services through the provision of a safe and efficient waiting area and customer experience, but also a location to convey important information to both current and prospective users of the service.

Project objectives

• Improve the awareness amongst the general public of the existence and benefit of the community connector shuttle services • Provide a safer and more comfortable passenger experience by adding signage, benches and/or shelters at priority locations

Ride Connection currently operates four community connector shuttles (WestLink, GroveLink, North Hillsboro and Tualatin) and rural door-to-door services within the County. The County has contracted with Ride Connection, which leverages a variety of funding sources, to operate the connector services. The total project cost estimate is $325,000, and the minimum match for Washington County is $65,000. The project is scalable.

Ride Connection Budget Fy22 Fy23 Total Capital $75,000.00 $150,000.00 $225,000.00 Planning $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $25,000.00 Contingency $25,000.00 $50,000.00 $75,000.00 Total $115,000.00 $210,000.00 $325,000.00

I-205 Transit Corridor: Connecting Tualatin to Oregon City #Bridgeport-Stafford Connector Shuttle

Project Description The Bridgeport-Stafford Shuttle is a part of a larger coordinated effort between the City of Wilsonville (SMART), Clackamas County, Washington County, and Ride Connection to fill the gap in transit service in the I-205 Corridor. In FY22-23, SMART plans to pilot a commuter shuttle service between Wilsonville and Clackamas town center. SMART’s express service will be enabled by and coordinated with ODOT implementing its bus-on-shoulder program along I-5 and I-205. If funded, Ride Connection will pilot shuttle service connecting the Bridgeport Park & Ride in Tualatin and a shared stop with SMART at the Stafford Rd interchange. This will provide a vital connection between southeast Washington County and western Clackamas County.

The route will begin at Bridgeport, continue south on Lower Boones Ferry to downtown Tualatin and the WES station, and then continue along Borland Road to the shared Stafford transfer point. The shuttle will be designed to serve commuters and also provide local connections to Bridgeport, Tualatin Meridian Park, Bridgeport Elementary School, Athey Creek Middle School, social services along Borland Rd., and destinations in Stafford.

The proposed shuttle will operate on 30-minute headways during peak hours to align with both existing Tualatin Shuttle Service and peak service on the new SMART express route. Headways will be 1 hour during off-peak, mid-day hours.

Ride Connection Budget Fy22 Fy23 Total Operations $221,897.72 $228,551.84 $450,449.56 Capital $85,000.00 $85,000.00 Planning $7,200.00 $7,200.00 Marketing $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 Total $324,097.72 $238,551.84 $562,649.56

LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION MEMORANDUM Office of the Director

To: Washington County Coordinating Committee From: Chris Deffebach, Sr Policy Analyst Subject: Metro Regional Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Study Public Comment Period Date: October 2, 2020

Metro’s Final Draft Regional Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Study is now available for public comment through Oct. 22, 2020. Metro staff and the consultant team will share the Study results with WCCC on Oct. 12 and provide opportunity for comment and questions. Following the public comment period, Metro staff will be seeking Metro Council and JPACT acceptance of the report. Metro staff and consultants will then prepare recommendations for moving forward with transfers.

The Study completed an inventory of non-interstate highways, summarized the policy framework for transfers and recommended priorities for transfer based on both a technical evaluation and a readiness evaluation. The final draft report identifies 11 of the arterial segments as most promising for jurisdictional transfer. In Washington County this includes Canyon Road, TV Highway, Pacific Highway, Farmington Road, SW Hall Blvd and Lower Boones Ferry Road. In August, Metro staff presented the draft study methodology and evaluation results to the WCCC TAC and several jurisdiction staff submitted comments.

Metro’s public comment online survey provides thoughtful questions for discussion including:

• Does this draft Regional Framework for Highway Jurisdictional Transfer report help move the region forward in achieving jurisdictional transfers? • What does the report do well? • How could the report be improved? Do you have specific suggestions to make this a stronger tool for achieving jurisdictional transfers? • Do you think jurisdictional transfers will benefit your community? Please explain how or how not.

The executive summary of the study is attached.

155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 16, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 • phone: 503-846-3822 • fax: 503-846-3588 www.co.washington.or.us/lut • [email protected] Regional Framework for Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Study Executive Summary September 2020

The Regional Framework for Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Study identifies which state-owned routes in greater Portland could be evaluated and considered for a jurisdictional transfer based on regional priorities, and summarizes key opportunities and barriers to transfer the routes. For the purposes of this study, jurisdictional transfer (also referred to as interjurisdictional transfer) is the process of changing ownership of a highway right-of-way from the State to a local jurisdiction – a city or county.¹ The decision framework serves as a tool for the state, regional and local jurisdiction leaders to identify promising candidate roadways for transfer and facilitate successful transfer of roadway ownership. The study was convened by Metro in collaboration with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).

Metro’s 2018 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) identified a jurisdictional transfer assessment as a necessary step to help the region meet its equity, safety and multimodal goals. In greater Portland, ownership patterns of streets, roads, and highways reflect historical patterns; these patterns do not necessarily reflect current transportation, land use, and development needs.

Several arterials in greater Portland were originally constructed to provide connections from farmland to the cities (referred to as “farm-to-market” roads). Over time, they grew to become highways. In 1956, the federal government began building the Interstate Highway System (known as the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways) and between 1960 and 1980, the highway system in the Portland area was built. It included limited access facilities such as Interstate 5 (I-5), I-205, and Highway 26, which provided more efficient long-distance travel options and replaced the function of the existing state system.

Since then, much of the land surrounding these highways has evolved to accommodate population growth, new development, and diversified land uses. As a result, many of the original roads now serve multiple travel needs, providing space for people walking and biking, taking transit, and making short- and medium-distance trips by motor vehicle. Roadway designs that catered to convenient auto access and were useful last century do not always work for our communities today. Managing these roads – ones that used to function as highways – to meet the needs of our communities, especially people of color, people with low-incomes, or limited-English speakers, has become increasingly complex due to historic lack of public and private investment in areas serving disadvantaged communities of color or communities with lower incomes.

While roadway functions have changed, for many, their roadway classification and physical design have not. Roadways that remain state highways retain the same classification identified in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), as amended. Transferring non-limited access state highways that function as urban arterials to local jurisdictions could provide the opportunity for them to be re-constructed and operated consistent with local design standards that may respond better to modern transportation uses and mobility options, desired land use and development patterns, and community needs.

The study provides a toolkit for state, regional, and local jurisdiction leaders to identify promising candidate roadways for transfer and to facilitate successful transfer of roadway ownership. It identified 11 state-owned highway segments in greater Portland that could be considered for a jurisdictional transfer and addressed some of the opportunities and barriers to transferring the routes. These 11 highway segments have significant needs and deficiencies, such as pedestrian and bicycle facility gaps, poor pavement conditions, or inadequate safety infrastructure. Many of these segments travel adjacent to areas with high concentrations of people of color, people with low incomes, or people who speak English as a second language. In general, these characteristics make them more promising candidates for jurisdictional transfer to local jurisdictions. In some cases, there is current interest from the local jurisdictions to pursue transfer in attempts to align existing and future land uses with community interest. As such, an investment in a jurisdictional transfer is not just a transportation investment, but also a community investment.

1. A jurisdictional transfer can also be the transfer of ownership from a local jurisdiction to ODOT.

Regional Framework for Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Study vii In addition to briefings and workshops with members of Metro’s Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee (TPAC) and Metro Council, project-focused committees were established to inform the study.

The Project Executive Team included representatives from Metro and ODOT and the Project Steering Committee included representatives from Metro, ODOT, TriMet, Washington County, Clackamas County, Multnomah County and the City of Portland.

Inventory of non-interstate highways

The study team prepared an atlas including all state-owned highways within the Portland metropolitan area that are not freeways. The atlas identifies jurisdictional boundaries, national, state, regional and local roadway classifications or designations and other roadway characteristics or elements such as surrounding land use, average annual daily traffic volume, presence of sidewalks, bike lanes, and bridges, and environmental factors. The atlas provided an inventory to help identify which roadways were studied further to develop findings regarding the most promising candidates for jurisdictional transfer. The atlas is included as Attachment A.

Policy framework

The study team summarized the legal, regulatory, and policy framework for highway jurisdictional transfers in Oregon. The team also identified major constraints to the transfer process and provided best practices based on examples of completed roadway transfers in Oregon. The summary gives decision-makers the overarching policy framework, relevant case studies and best practices needed to identify, analyze and implement jurisdictional transfers in the region. (see Section 2 and Attachment B)

Corridor evaluations and findings

The study team evaluated 78 corridor segments within the Portland metropolitan area to determine the most promising corridor segments for transfer. For the purposes of this evaluation, a corridor segment is defined as a portion of an arterial highway within a single jurisdiction in the Portland Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA).2,3 The evaluation methodology consists of two parallel processes, each consisting of one screening round and one evaluation round. ▪ Round 1: Preliminary screening of all ODOT-owned arterial highway corridor segments in the Portland MPA to screen out segments that are not viable candidates for jurisdictional transfer because of their intended vehicle and freight throughput function ▪ Round 2a: Technical evaluation of the remaining segments from Round 1 to select promising segments for potential transfer ▪ Round 2b: Readiness evaluation of the remaining segments from Round 1 to select promising segments for potential transfer The results from Round 1, preliminary screening, equally informed subsequent evaluation rounds. After Round 1, the study team evaluated the remaining corridor segments to identify the most promising segments as candidates for jurisdictional transfer from two perspectives: technical (Round 2a) and readiness of the local jurisdictional to accept and manage an arterial (Round 2b). The technical evaluation examined segments using technical considerations related to the existing and future function of the roadway. Starting with a technical perspective allows considerations about the function of a roadway to inform conversations about jurisdictional transfer. The readiness evaluation examines the same universe of segments using readiness considerations related to local support and interest, including characteristics such as jurisdictional capacity, leadership interest, or experience with jurisdictional transfers.

2. The MPA is a federally-mandated boundary designated by Metro and encompasses all cities in the metropolitan area. 3. Corridor segment definitions are for this evaluation only. Highway transfer recommendations may combine or split corridor segments based on what makes sense at the time of a transfer. viii Regional Framework for Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Study The study team also conducted an equity consideration evaluation to identify highway corridors with higher- than-average levels of people of color, low-income households, people who are unemployed and people with limited English proficiency and/or disabilities. Those corridors with higher than regional averages of equity- focused populations were given additional consideration as most promising for jurisdictional transfer.

The team evaluated and compared results from Round 2a and Round 2b, informed by the equity considerations evaluation, to identify segments that appeared most promising for jurisdictional transfer discussion (see Sections 3 and 4 and Attachment C for evaluation criteria and scoring and Attachment D for the Equity Considerations).

While all of the corridors in this report are of importance, the team identified the 11 corridors with mile points (MP) listed below (as shown in Figure ES-1) for consideration for further jurisdictional transfer discussions. These corridors showed the strongest characteristics for potential jurisdictional transfer based on an assessment of technical, readiness and equity considerations. Many of these highway corridors are within areas that have higher than average concentrations of people of color and people who are low-income. In addition, many of these highway corridors demonstrated traffic safety needs. Of the factors used in the analysis, these factors were identified of critical concern in the 2018 RTP. Figure ES-2 illustrates the evaluation process. 1. Powell Boulevard (U.S. 26): MP 0.2 - 10.0 2. Barbur Boulevard (OR 99W): MP 1.2 - 7.6 ODOT Arterial Highways 3. SE/NE 82nd Avenue (OR 213): MP -0.1 - 7.2 4. Tualatin Valley Highway (OR 8): MP 2.9 - 5.9 Preliminary Screening 5. Pacific Highway W (OR 99W): MP 7.6 -11.5 Technical Readiness 6. Tualatin Valley Highway (OR 8): MP 5.9 - 17.9 Evaluation Evaluation 7. Pacific Highway W (OR 99W): MP 11.5 - 14.5 Equity 8. Farmington Road (OR 10): MP 5.9 - 7.3 Findings 9. SW Hall Boulevard (OR 141: MP 2.6 - 7.1 and MP 7.7 - 8.9 Figure ES-2: Screening, technical evaluation and readiness evaluation process 10. SE McLoughlin Boulevard (OR 99E): MP 5.7 - 6.7 11. Willamette Drive (OR 43): MP 8.0 - 11.5 Need and deficiencies

The study team prepared a high-level assessment of the needs and deficiencies based on today’s conditions and sentiments of the 11 potential jurisdictional transfer candidates identified above to help inform future conversations about investment and/or jurisdictional transfer. The needs and deficiencies assessment is designed and organized primarily as a tool for cities and counties most likely to receive these facilities and secondarily for regional and state agencies. See Section 5 and Attachment E.

Cost estimating methodology

The study team developed a cost estimating methodology to provide partners with a consistent process for use in developing and understanding the costs associated with a highway jurisdictional transfer in greater Portland. The methodology is based on industry practices, asset management strategies, past jurisdictional transfers, and technical expertise in consultation with ODOT staff and technical experts. Roadways require maintenance, improvements, and oversight over the course of ownership. The methodology ensures partners have consistent, necessary tools to consider these variables as local jurisdictions, Metro and ODOT engage in conversations regarding highway jurisdictional transfer. See Section 6 and Attachment F.

Regional Framework for Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Study ix 0 2 4 Miles CLARK COUNTY

Lomba N rd Columbia River St Willamette River 30 30 WASHINGTON west B COUNTY 5 26 Portland Forest W S T Hillsboro 213 8 u 84 north Troutdale Grove a lat 405 in Val 47 ley Hw MULTNOMAH 30 y S east 219 Beaverton E Powell B S lvd COUNTY 8 E 26 M

10 c e L v Gresham

o A 205 217 u

10 d g

n h

l i

8 Rd n

SW Farmington 43 E B

141 S l S 26 v

Tigard d

H Happy

a 224 l

B Valley

99 l v 99 west east d 212

W il 224 la m Gladstone Tualatin e tte 205 West D Linn r 5 CLACKAMAS Oregon COUNTY LEGEND City Most Promising Transfer 213 Candidates Wilsonville south County boundaries Metropolitan Planning Area Other highways and Interstates As of 2020. Conditions may change over time Figure ES-1: Corridors identified as promising candidates for jurisdictional transfer x Regional Framework for Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Study Briefing for Washington County Coordinating Committee

Department of Community Services Transportation Division

October 12, 2020 The information presented here, and the public and agency input received, may be adopted or incorporated by reference into a future environmental review process to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. 1 Project Overview Purpose and Need

Seismic Resiliency and Emergency Response

Regional Recovery and Rebuilding

Long-term Use

2 Project Overview Why Burnside? • Regional lifeline route

• Runs 18 miles, from Washington County to Gresham

• In the heart of downtown, it is a key link across the Willamette River

• Fewest risks of collapsing overpasses during an earthquake

3 Project Timeline

Funding

• Vehicle Registration Fee • Metro Get Moving 2020

4 Project Timeline Environmental Review Phase – Key Milestones

5 Range of Alternatives

Enhanced Seismic Retrofit

Replacement: Short Span (Bascule or Lift)

Replacement: Long Span (Bascule or Lift)

Replacement: Couch Extension (Bascule or Lift)

(Concept Images) 6 CTF Recommendation Preferred Alternative Replacement: Long Span Alternative

The example image above is just one variation of what a long span bridge could look like.

7 Community Task Force Recommendation Preferred Alternative: Replacement Long Span What we heard from the CTF:

Best for seismic resiliency

Least cost alternative ($825 million compared to $950 million)

Enhances/preserves community resources

Improved safety for bicyclists, pedestrians and other users

Least impacts to natural resources

Explore ways to mitigate the long span’s impacts on views

8 Long Span Alternative Long Span Alternative

9 10 11 Improved Safety

Additional deck width over the river provides a safer facility for bicyclists, pedestrians and other users

Potential future Potential future Streetcar WB lane Streetcar EB lane

12 1313 1414 1515 16 17 18 19 Recent Meetings & Next Steps

• Sept. 21: CTF recommends preferred alternative • Sept. 29: First meeting of Urban Design & Aesthetics Work Gp. • Oct. 2: Policy Group votes on preferred alternative • Oct. 29: County Board votes on preferred alternative • October: CTF – Kickoff Type Selection Phase • January: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Publication

20 Questions?

21 NW Cornelius Pass Road

Jurisdictional Transfer July 2020

NW Cornelius Pass Road will be transferred from Multnomah County and Washington County to ODOT MAP OF NW CORNELIUS PASS ROAD The Oregon Department of Transportation is BETWEEN U.S. 30 and U.S. 26 preparing to assume ownership of NW Cornelius . d Pass Road between U.S. 30 and U.S. 26 through R s s a process called a . a NW St. Helens Rd. jurisdictional transfer P s u Multnomah County and Washington County li To Portland currently manage this road. The transfer of this To Scappoose orne road was directed by the State Legislature in 2017. Once the road is transferred it will be part of our NW C state highway system. MULTNOMAH COUNTY Changes for residents and travelers following the jurisdictional transfer WASHINGTON COUNTY There are only a few noticeable changes for NW S kyli ne people who live and travel on NW Cornelius Pass d Blvd. R

Road every day. As a state highway, the road will a P

u i be subject to ODOT standards for design and l Rd. e iser n Ka r NW maintenance and any improvements to the road o C

NW Phillips Rd.

will be planned and funded at the statewide level, l

which you can read more about on the next page. W N

. d NW Ger Rd. ODOT is collaborating with Multnomah County and s R mantown as Washington County to complete the jurisdictional s P liu transfer. orne

NW C NE Jacobsen St. NW Expected transfer: late 2020 or early 2021. W es t U ni on Rd. NW Cornelius Pass Road will become Sunset Hwy.

Oregon (OR) 127. . d

a P

u To Beaverton i l

Questions or comments? Contact: To Hillsboro

e n r

Hope Estes, ODOT Community Affairs o NORTH

C E N

[email protected] | 503-731-4812

What will change once NW Cornelius Pass Road is transferred to ODOT? County ownership ODOT ownership

NW Cornelius Pass Road is a local road belonging to NW Cornelius Pass Road is a state highway. It is officially Multnomah and Washington Counties. Oregon 127 and will have a new highway name in addition to being known as Cornelius Pass Road.

Cornelius Pass Road is subject to all rules and Cornelius Pass Road is subject to all rules and regulations associated with being a Multnomah County regulations associated with being a state highway. and Washington County road.

Construction projects on NW Cornelius Pass Road Construction projects are planned, designed, funded are planned, designed, funded and delivered through and delivered through ODOT. No dedicated funding was Multnomah and Washington Counties. provided by HB 2017 for this road. There are no planned projects for NW Cornelius Pass Road in the 2021-2024 Draft Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, Oregon’s funding process for highway improvements. Projects that were planned before the transfer will still be delivered by the counties. (Fold up to see more information) (Continued from other side)

What will change once NW Cornelius Pass Road is transferred to ODOT? County ownership ODOT ownership

Multnomah and Washington Counties are responsible ODOT is responsible for maintaining roadway paving for road maintenance such as pavement repair, and protective sealing, striping, bridges, illumination, protective sealing and lane striping. signs, signals and all other roadway features.

Multnomah and Washington County Public Works ODOT responds to crashes and other incidents on the respond to crashes and other incidents on the road. road. Law enforcement response remains the same.

Multnomah and Washington Counties are responsible ODOT is responsible for maintaining the road during for maintaining the road during winter weather. Both winter weather. ODOT provides winter weather service on counties currently classify the road as a primary route NW Cornelius Pass Road at Level of Service B, meaning for winter weather operations. ODOT plows the road after completing plowing on primary highways such as I-5 and U.S. 26.

Si desea obtener información sobre este proyecto traducida al español, sírvase llamar al (503) 731-4128. (503) al llamar sírvase español, al traducida proyecto este sobre información obtener desea Si

information call 503-731-4128, TTY 800-735-2900 or Oregon Relay Service 7-1-1. 7-1-1. Service Relay Oregon or 800-735-2900 TTY 503-731-4128, call information

For ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) or Civil Rights Title VI accommodations, translation/interpretation services, or more more or services, translation/interpretation accommodations, VI Title Rights Civil or Act) Disabilities with (Americans ADA For

[email protected] | 503-731-4812 | [email protected]

Hope Estes, ODOT Community Affairs Community ODOT Estes, Hope

Questions or comments? Contact: comments? or Questions

inside more Learn

ODOT soon ODOT

to transferred be will

NW Cornelius Pass Road Pass Cornelius NW

Portland, OR 97209 OR Portland, 123 NW Flanders NW 123

NW Cornelius Pass Road

Jurisdictional Transfer July 2020

NW Cornelius Pass Road will be transferred from Multnomah County and Washington County to ODOT in late 2020 or early 2021.

2017 through 2019 Fall 2020 Late 2020/early 2021 House Bill 2017 requires The Oregon The jurisdictional that ODOT take ownership Transportation transfer is complete. NW of NW Cornelius Pass Commission reviews Cornelius Pass Road is Road in a jurisdictional and approves the now part of the Oregon transfer from Multnomah jurisdictional transfer, state highway system. County and Washington which is then signed by Maintenance, planning, County. ODOT works with the ODOT Right of Way funding, permitting and the counties to prepare all Manager. ODOT and the incident response are now the documents needed for two Counties prepare for managed by ODOT. the transfer. the transfer.

Sign up for project updates: tinyurl.com/CornPassTransfer OTC Begins a New STIP Cycle. Follow the Process and get Involved!

The Oregon Transportation Commission is starting work to identify where to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to preserve and improve the state’s transportation system. Every three years, the OTC puts together the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that lays out where we will invest federal and state money in the transportation system—everything from roads and bridges to public transportation to bike paths and sidewalks.

The OTC and ODOT develop the STIP with a wide variety of participants, including cities, counties, many other partners and the public. This STIP looks all the way out to funding projects in 2024 through 2027.

2024-2027 STIP Time frame and Process The OTC begins work on the 2024-2027 STIP in July 2020 and expects to finish in 2023.

There are three steps to developing the STIP. • Dividing up the money: Based on the Commission’s policies, priorities and goals, the OTC divides the money among programs that fix roads and bridges, address safety problems, provide more options to get around and improve our transportation system— both state highways and local roads. The OTC will decide how to divide up the money by the end of 2020. • Picking projects: Once we know how much money each program has to spend we start picking projects. We use data on conditions, safety and congestion to come up with a list of the highest priority projects that help us make progress toward meeting our goals. We figure out how much each project will cost and when we could deliver them. We also work with advisory committees made up of local elected officials and citizens to help understand which projects are most important to our communities. They help us come up with a list of the best projects that fit within our budget and help us meet our goals. This list is the draft STIP. • Public review and approval: The draft STIP will go out for public review in early 2023 so you can comment on the list of projects.

Program Categories As with last STIP, the OTC plans to divide funds among six program categories. • Enhance Highway: Highway projects that expand or enhance the transportation system. • Fix-it: Projects that maintain or fix the state highway system. • Safety: Projects focused on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes on Oregon’s roads. • Non-Highway: Bicycle, pedestrian, public transportation and transportation options projects and programs. • Local Programs: Funding to local governments for priority projects. • Other Functions: Workforce development, planning and data collection and Page | 2

administrative programs using federal resources.

Addressing Climate Change Under a new Executive Order from Governor Brown, ODOT will find ways to address greenhouse gas emissions through projects in the STIP. ODOT plans to look at how different ways of dividing up the money among programs will impact GHG emissions, and we will also use GHG emissions as one of the criteria for picking the best projects.

How You Can Provide Input The OTC encourages citizens and stakeholders to provide input on how we should divide funds among programs so that we’re meeting needs across the state. There are a number of ways you can stay informed and provide input. • Visit our STIP web page at oregon.gov/ODOT/STIP. You can watch a video about the STIP and learn more. We’ll post new information online as the process goes on. • Take our survey to provide your input on how we should spend money. • Sign up for our STIP email list to get regular updates. • Keep up with the action by viewing videos and materials from the Oregon Transportation Commission meetings. • Share your thoughts by submitting a comment on the Commission’s website.

FACT SHEET | 2024-2027 STIP July 2020 Media release • Comunicado de prensa

Oct. 2, 2020

Melissa De Lyser | Public Affairs and Communications Manager • Gerente de Comunicaciones 503-846-4963 | [email protected]

This media release has been posted to the Washington County website Este comunicado de prensa ha sido publicado en el sitio web del Condado de Washington

Comment on the Transit Development Comente en la jornada de puertas Plan abiertas del Plan de Desarrollo del Transporte Público Take an online survey on the Transit Development Plan project to help identify Realice una encuesta en línea sobre el proyecto improvements to public transportation in rural del Plan de Desarrollo del Transporte Público Washington County and the cities of Banks, para ayudar a identificar mejoras para el Gaston and North Plains. transporte público en las zonas rurales del Condado de Washington y en las ciudades de Washington County, in partnership with Ride Banks, Gaston y North Plains. Connection, Inc., is preparing the plan to identify public transportation priorities to meet Keep El Condado de Washington, en colaboración con Oregon Moving (House Bill 2017) legislation Ride Connection, Inc., está preparando el plan requirements. Learn more para identificar las prioridades del transporte público para cumplir los requisitos legales de The online open house survey asks for feedback Keep Oregon Moving [Mantener a Oregon en on: Movimiento] (Ley de la Cámara 2017). Obtenga Expansion of bus routes and more más información frequent service. Additional service hours earlier and/or later in the day. La encuesta de la jornada de puertas abiertas en Improved connections among services línea solicita comentarios sobre los siguientes offered by different transit providers in temas: Washington, Clackamas, Columbia, Tillamook and Yamhill counties. Expansión de las rutas de autobús y Improved access to transit including bike servicios más frecuentes. lanes, sidewalks, ADA ramps and Horarios de servicio adicionales más crosswalks. temprano o más tarde en el día. Transit stop improvements such as Conexiones mejoradas entre los servicios lighting, seating, curb ramps and more. ofrecidos por los distintos proveedores de More park-and-ride facilities. transporte público en los condados de Washington, Clackamas, Columbia, A Transit Committee, appointed by the Tillamook y Yamhill. Acceso mejorado al transporte público, Washington County Board of Commissioners, is incluyendo bicisendas, aceras, rampas en assisting with the development of the plan. virtud de ADA y cruces peatonales. Meetings are open to the public and include time Mejoras en las paradas de transporte, como el alumbrado, los asientos, las for public comment. rampas para aceras y más. Más instalaciones para estacionamientos The Transit Development Plan online open combinados con el transporte público. house survey has 18 brief questions about Un Comité de Transporte Público, designado por transportation services in the rural area and la Junta de Comisionados del Condado de participant demographics. Participants also have Washington, está asistiendo con el desarrollo del an opportunity to share additional thoughts not plan. Las reuniones son abiertas al público e covered by the questions. The survey takes less incluyen tiempo para los comentarios del than 10 minutes to complete. The Transit público. Committee will consider all survey results when developing the plan. La encuesta de la jornada de puertas abiertas en línea sobre el Plan de Desarrollo del Transporte Washington County is committed to planning, Público presenta 18 preguntas breves sobre los building and maintaining a great transportation servicios de transporte de las zonas rurales y system, ensuring the safety of all roadway users, sobre las características demográficas de los and operating the County roadway system in a participantes. Los participantes también tienen la cost-effective and environmentally responsible oportunidad de compartir comentarios manner. adicionales que las preguntas no cubran. La encuesta lleva menos de 10 minutos en completarse. El Comité de Transporte Público tendrá en cuenta todos los resultados de la encuesta cuando desarrolle el plan.

El Condado de Washington se compromete a planificar, construir y mantener un gran sistema de transporte, garantizando la seguridad a todos los usuarios de las carreteras y operando el sistema de carreteras del condado de manera rentable y responsable con respecto al medio ambiente.

Follow us • Síguenos en redes sociales Melissa De Lyser | Public Affairs and Communications Manager • Gerente de Comunicaciones

503-846-4963 | [email protected]

WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON

Chair Robin McArthur Land Conservation and Development Commission Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Ste. 150 Salem, OR 97301 Sent via email to Commission Assistant, Esther Johnson

Chair McArthur and Commissioners:

On behalf of the members of the Washington County Coordinating Committeei (WCCC), I am sharing comments from the WCCC members present at our Sept. 14, 2020 meeting, where we discussed the draft rules to implement HB 2001 regarding middle housing in large/Metro cities and counties for your consideration. The WCCC discussion followed a presentation on the draft rules by Department of Land Conservation and Development staff.

In general, the comments request greater flexibility in the rules to reflect the great diversity between existing densely urbanized areas, more suburban areas and new urban areas. Specifically, the WCCC requests the Commission consider the following:

• Proximity to services is important. WCCC members expressed concern that the draft rules do not seem to prioritize higher-density middle housing development in areas where more urban services are available, such as frequent transit service, shopping and other daily service needs. Those seem to be the areas most suited to the higher-density middle housing types.

• Parking requirements. While one space per unit, as proposed in the draft rules, may be suitable for densely urbanized areas with good transit service and high walkability, WCCC members expressed concern that one space per unit will not be adequate in areas with lower transit service levels and/or lower walkability. We would like to see flexibility for jurisdictions to require more parking. Experience in our jurisdictions demonstrates that one household can have multiple workers who need a car to get to work and that a lack of on-site parking impacts neighborhood livability as conflicts emerge.

• New urban area requirements. Opportunities to promote middle housing are vastly different in existing urban infill areas than in new areas brought into the Urban Growth Boundary. Master planning underway for these new urban areas already includes requirements to meet certain minimum overall density requirements and provides opportunities for inclusion of middle housing during the planning process. WCCC members expressed concerns that the middle housing rules could create confusion in master planned areas and would like to see greater flexibility to meet reasonable middle housing targets in new urban areas to allow consideration of topography, infrastructure costs and other site-specific factors.

Board of County Commissioners 155 North First Avenue, Suite 300, MS 22, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 846-8681 • fax: (503) 846-4545

• Performance Metric Approach. The Performance Metric Approach is a valuable alternative to the model code or the minimum compliance standards as a path for compliance with HB 2001, and the WCCC appreciates its addition. The WCCC requests the Commission reduce the percentages for triplexes, fourplexes, town homes and cottage clusters or replace them with a broader variety of metrics that can achieve a similar intent.

• Unintended consequences for housing affordability. Most importantly, the WCCC is concerned that middle housing has the potential to displace existing affordable single-family housing, particularly rental housing. The requirements may result in a greater number of middle housing units, but at costs that are prohibitive to those residents potentially displaced to accommodate middle housing development. The WCCC requests the Commission consider strategies to mitigate for affordable housing displacement.

Thank you for the opportunity to share these comments from the WCCC’s members. Several of the cities may be submitting more specific comments.

We would also like to sincerely thank the DLCD staff who have provided the WCCC with information about HB 2001 and HB 2003 rulemaking throughout the process.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Roy Rogers, Chair Washington County Coordinating Committee

cc: Washington County Board of Commissioners

WCCC members present on Sept. 14, 2020: Mayor Denny Doyle, City of Beaverton Mayor Frank Bubenik, City of Tualatin Mayor Gery Schirado, City of Durham Mayor Jason Snider, City of Tigard Mayor Jef Dalin, City of Cornelius Mayor Keith Mays, City of Sherwood Mayor Ken Gibson, City of King City Mayor Pete Truax, City of Forest Grove Commissioner Roy Rogers, Washington County (Chair) Mayor Steve Callaway, City of Hillsboro Mayor Teri Lenahan, City of North Plains Mayor Tim Knapp, City of Wilsonville

i The Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) coordinates activities of Washington County local governments and works toward consensus on regional and state land use and transportation planning matters. The WCCC is composed of elected representatives from Washington County and the cities in Washington County.