Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, let's get started. Okay.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Rachel Moribidu, chair of the Washington County Planning Commission. Today is August 5th, and this afternoon's meeting of the Planning Commission is called to order. May we have the roll call, please, Clerk Aguilar?

Yes. Commissioner Carlson? Present. Commissioner D'Amico?

Present.

Commissioner Frye? Commissioner Peterson has an excused absence. Commissioner Rosenberry. Commissioner Whipps.

Present.

Commissioner or Vice Chair Monteblanco.

Here.

Chair Moribidu. Present. We have six.

I think it was their desk. I think it was their desk.

Oh, oh, sorry. Commissioner just present. Thank you. Looks like we have six in attendance. So we do have a quorum.

Thank you. Okay, moving on to the director's report. Maybe have the director's report, please.

Thank you. Thank you for everybody being flexible and changing to the work session room. I think you're going to be much more comfortable here than you would being in the auditorium. We've got an air conditioning issue that we're working on and have to get apart from far away. So in terms of land use and planning updates, the county's active transportation plan provides a blueprint for pedestrian and bicycle networks in the community and an online open house for the active transportation plan is now available on our website through August 16th. To participate, you can go to the county land use transportation webpage or visit atp2026.washcoopenhouses.org. And then another transportation planning project updated every two years, the Washington County Transit Development Plan focuses on transit improvement. And that online open house will be live August 19th through September 13th. That open house and survey will inform 2026 update and reflect priorities for fiscal years 27, 28, and 28, 29. And you can go to the same Washington County land use webpage and participate in that once it goes live on the 19th. I think of interest to the Commission is that the fact that the Office of Access and Opportunity is scheduled to have a work session with the Board of County Commissioners next week on August 11th to provide an update on the district-oriented community groups. Another item, Washington County is partnering with Oregon Parks and Recreation Department and the Salmonberry Trail Foundation on the first segment called the Catalyst Loop segment of the Salmonberry Trail. This is a 14-mile connection from Banks to Stubbs Seward State Park, and it will link Salmonberry and the Banks-Vernonia Trails. And we're working on finalizing a trail segment operating agreement, and there will be a work session on this item on August 25th. board of county commissioners agenda. In terms of staffing, we're still in the recruiting process for the land use section, land use planning section manager. We will be doing a first round of interviews next week and have a pool of nine candidates that we'll be interviewing. So we're making positive progress in that regard and we'll provide you an update as soon as we have any more information on that. Regarding today's meeting, we've got two different work session items. The first is an Urban Services Framework 101 and Findings presented by Kimmy Sloop, Senior Planner. Followed by that will be a work session on the draft Committee for Community Involvement Notification Letter that we will be sending to Land Conservation and Development Commission. There's one action item, which is a little different. different. We typically don't bring action items before the Planning Commission, but this is a draft resolution in order regarding the Washington County Community Involvement Program. And then the remaining item is continued deliberations on Ordinance 915, amending county planning documents relating to the Community Involvement Program. And then in terms of upcoming meetings, at this time, staff would like to propose canceling the August 19th meeting due to a lack of agenda items. That concludes the planning director's report, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Do commissioners have questions? None. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for the report. Next item on the agenda is public communication. I understand, although I was not here last time, there was some robust comments received on Ordinance 915 and just want to let folks know that that is a closed public comment period. So it's not on the agenda, is on the agenda for today and so cannot be commented on during this period. If folks have comments they would like to make regarding Ordinance 915, we encourage you to reach out to your county commissioner who will have an open public comment period on their agenda on the 25th of August. With that, is anyone signed up to speak on matters not on the agenda?

Yes, we do have one person who has signed up, Mike Dyke.

And also, for the record, Commissioner Frye has joined. And Commissioner Rosenberg.

Okay. Mr. Dyke, would you like to come up to the table and please state your name and location or address, please?

I'll come in for a chat. Sorry, I can't see without my glasses. Struggle is real. I'm Mike Dyke, 3365 Northwest Ashland Drive, Beaverton, Oregon. I'm a member of the Aloha Grange, which is located at the corner 185th and Alexander. I'm concerned the development of Alexander Street will remove the last parking and access for garbage for the Aloha Grange building entirely. The Aloha Grange building is a structure built in 1932 by a private donation, which is a public use for the community. This building lost its front entry at front steps when 185th Avenue was widened several years ago. Not in my statement, but the, engineer that did the street luckily moved the street over or we'd lost 10 feet of the building. The elimination of parking at the front of the building went away with 185th. The present change eliminates the parking and garage garbage access on the north side of the building. The south side and the west side of the structure is owned by Safeway Corporation. The project manager for the Alexander Street Improvement has notified us that our parking on the north side of the building is not legal and already belongs to the county. The notifications for this project were sent to our street address and not to our mailbox, which meant we were not notified of this project for several months. No one seems to be able to help us to mediate this problem. I see a possible way Aloha Garbage or Aloha Grange could retain a few parking spaces and garbage access if the county would use its powers. There is a parking lot to the south of the Grange building belonging to the Safeway Corporation. This is a small pie-shaped parcel with access to 185th Avenue to the east. This parcel is not used Other than its emergency exit for the Safeway and parking for other users of the area, if the county could show us how to gain title to this pie-shaped piece, we would again have some parking and garbage service. That's the conclusion of my statement. Thank you very much.

Are there others signed up for public comment?

Yes, it looks like we have Sarah Richmond.

Hello? There's no discussion, sir. The comments are just making sure. I want to back up.

Oh, one moment, Ms. Richmond.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you, sir. Sarah, please continue. Oh, sure. Could you please state your name and address and location, please, for the record?

Sure, absolutely. My name is Sarah Richmond. My address is 21590 Southwest Augusta Street, Beaverton, 97003. And I just heard about an hour ago that Mike was coming in to speak. So I called in to back him up. I am the president and also the treasurer for the Hoedowners. It's a square dance group that attends, that dances at the Aloha Grange. This primarily supports seniors. Mike, who just came up, is celebrating his 83rd birthday this week. We have a very active group of people, and we need this building to be functioning at its full capacity, its full availability, to help these seniors. This is a very large active group. Not only the square dancers, we have the eager beavers who dance on Mondays. Many, many seniors attend this, and it's good for them socially, mentally. financially, it's very, very inexpensive for them. This building, the Aloha Grange, and many of you might know it, it's right behind Big Lots or the former Big Lots there on 185th and TV Highway, has been there since the 1930s, as Mike has touched on. It basically has been a community center for that long. And we truly have had our, and we didn't, we're not notified We did not receive the notification. There was an attempt to notify us, but we did not receive it in time. They are moving our parking lot. They're moving our garbage ability. And as Mike suggested, if we have a way of addressing that, it will support a community center that has been there for over a century or almost a century. So we would appreciate your looking into this and helping us out. And how do we partner with you on doing Mike's suggestion of possibly finding the lease for this? Or can we modify the existing plans? Nothing's been started yet. So I don't know if anything can be done. But it would very much help the community if it can.

Thank you very much. Anyone else online?

Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to present in front of the Planning Commission on any non-agenda items? Seeing none, we can proceed.

Thank you. Next up on the agenda is our work session. The first one we have is the Urban Services Framework 101 and Findings.

good afternoon commissioners my name is kimmy sloop i am a senior planner with the community planning group and i'm the project manager for the urban services framework project is what i will be sharing with you today and we're just sharing this information um as as information work that was recently done and there's no no action that's needed to share with you the information we've been working on for the past so year and a half so Presentation will include some foundational information about the urban unincorporated areas and how urban services are provided. And then second, we'll share with you some of the findings from the Urban Services Framework Project and what the project is. So we're sharing this information now because the current system of serving the urban unincorporated area works, but over time, it'll be harder to sustain the current levels of service based with the current funding structures. And understanding this, last year the county partnered with Tigard and Beaverton to initiate the Urban Services Framework Project. The project is funded with Federal American Rescue Plan Act dollars, ARPA funds, and is intended to provide a common understanding of urban service provisions in the urban unincorporated areas in Washington County. It's a technical exercise to explore both the fiscal and practical considerations of providing urban services in these areas now and in the future. including how the urban services are funded and delivered, the factors contributing to long-term fiscal pressures, how revenues and service responsibilities could shift under alternative service provision, and the implications for the people and businesses that live in those current urban unappropriated areas. So this first section is really the foundational information that we discovered from the project. Early in the project, we did some interviews with some of the elected officials and city leadership. And one of the things that came out of that is there really was not a full understanding of how urban services are provided and funded in the urban and incorporated areas. So we developed some foundational information to lay this groundwork for the background of the Urban Services Framework Project. One of the things I need to kind of caveat at the beginning is that a lot of the providing urban services is complicated. And there's multiple service providers over multiple geographies. And we aren't able to capture every single little detail in this. This is kind of a high level overview. Just kind of. a refresher of what is the urban unincorporated area. That's the area outside of cities but within the urban growth boundaries. So in Washington County, the total population is about 611,000 people. In the urban unincorporated area, which is the area in the blue, there's 215,000 people. So about one in three Washington County residents lives in an unincorporated area. So they get services from the county, then some of those services are at a higher standard or closer to city services, but they are not part of cities. So how did these urban unincorporated areas develop? Well, since probably before the 1940s, developers, when they built their developments, they provided their own services or they created small urban utility districts to provide things like water and sewer. And then in the 1970s, the Oregon land use law went into effect that changed where development could occur and how. And today, people living in these urban unincorporated areas, they can't easily tell when they live in a city or when they're in the county because a lot of it looks the same. A lot of those services, it appears similar, but they're not. And people's school district doesn't necessarily align with their city. Their zip code doesn't, their mailing address isn't aligned with where they live either. The area on these maps is the Bethany area, so it's south of Springville, West Union Road area. This kind of shows the progression of development over time and how it's really changed throughout the years. So these next slides focus on who provides services in the urban and incorporated areas. So in the urban and incorporated areas and the incorporated cities, Washington County provides services throughout the county, whether you're in a city or in the unincorporated area, and that's the blue box. Those include things like restaurant inspections. The teal boxes is services that are provided in the urban and incorporated area, and those are provided by the county. And also by county service districts. So planning and permitting, for example, is something that's only provided in the unincorporated areas for Washington County. And county service districts include like the Urban Roads Maintenance District and the Enhanced Air Patrol District. And then those who live in the urban unincorporated areas also get services from special service districts like Toulon Valley Fire and Rescue, Toulon Hills Park and Rec, Toulon Valley Water District. In cities, the teal boxes become the orange box and a lot of those services are taken over provided by the cities rather than the county service districts. Depending on the city, you also receive these services from special service districts. And this graphic, which I will hand out, shows kind of the vast array of services that are provided by the county and in the cities, give you a sense of all of the different types of services that people receive. So we're just kind of gonna focus on the area. So the left half are services in Washington County, and then the blue, the teal and the gray. Services in cities would include the blue and the orange and the gray. So the first section here, highlight those that are the services that are provided in Washington County and the urban and appropriated. or the unincorporated areas. So the urban unincorporated areas receive all three of those. And you can see there's quite a few services. And the urban unincorporated areas, this is the logos of all the organizations that provide different services. So there's a lot, a lot of overlapping groups and a lot of different services. So we created, as part of this project, we did an inventory of some of the different services and Our analysis included those services that were provided by the county, but we did do an inventory of both services provided by the county and those that are provided by social service districts. So these are the services that are provided by, urban services provided by the county. Just one of the findings or one of the deliverables from this project is, will be an urban services framework lookbook. It goes through each of these different services, both those provided by the county and those provided by social service districts. and includes a description of what those services are, who provides them, and how to fund it. So this is kind of a deliverable to come that I can send around a copy just so you can see what it will look like at the end of the day. So the services provided by the county, big picture, are law enforcement, libraries, parks, specifically Metzger Park, planning and development, sanitary, sewer, and stormwater, which is provided by a county service district, clean water services, and . Other services that are provided by special service district and others in the urban unincorporated area include fire, garbage, and recycling, metro, parks and recreation, schools, transit, and water. And who provides these services are identified through urban planning area agreements and urban service agreements that the county has with the city's urban planning service providers. So one of the questions that came up is kind of what is the difference between living in an urban unincorporated area compared to a city? So this graphic is kind of just part of the larger graphic. It just shows what the services you receive if you live in a city. And really doing an inventory of those services, it really is those services that they have more to do with creating a sense of place and identity for the city. So this is the county. These are some of the services that cities provide that the county does not provide at all or the county provides in a very limited manner. So code enforcement is a good example of one where the cities have more capacity to do code enforcement in the county. The cities provide community, they have like community emergency management, they have volunteer organizations that the county doesn't have to do some of those services. So this is just kind of a big picture. And the other difference between the city and the county is the representation. When you're in a city, you have city councilors that also represent you as well as the Washington County Commission. So this is kind of the big picture of who provides what and the differences with that. And as we get into the Urban Services Framework Project, all of that provides kind of the same baseline information for everyone making decisions because there were some misunderstandings or not similar information about who provides what services. So then we went into creating what is the Urban Services Framework Project and what are some of the observations and findings from that. And really, the Urban Services Framework Project looks at the current state of providing urban services in an urban and incorporated area. It's a technical study focused on the challenges of providing those services, and that's the common foundation for discussions that government partners can have about what happens next. So the project had four main elements. We looked at law enforcement, sanitary sewer and stormwater, streets and roads, parks and planning services, and identified how the services are being provided and funded currently, with the county being the main provider, and what it would be if some of the services were provided by the cities. And those services were chosen because they are state-required urban services, and they are ones that are in the county control. So we didn't look at things like water that are special districts that the county does not control. We looked at the economic and fiscal challenges provided in those urban services and looked at the policy and legal considerations, such as what is the process to annex areas into cities, what What's involved with that? We applied this information to six case study areas in the Tigard and Be Rich in Urban Planning Agreement areas. And those case studies, we picked those case studies based on the age of infrastructure and development and kind of the differences. And we worked with our partners in Tigard and Be Rich to identify those. The project started in January 2025, and it will be done at the end of this year. So we're kind of in the final stages, working on our final report right now. And this slide just shows kind of where those case study areas are. So there were four in the Beaverton Urban Planning Area agreement areas, the Bethany, Cedar Hills West, Raleigh Hills, and Garden Home, and then Metzger and Bull Mountain are ones that are in the Tiger EPA. So last night, and then, yeah, just reinforcing the services that we looked at. This is just a really high level of the findings that we have come up with through the project. We made a presentation last night to the Board of Commissioners, which went through a lot more of the detailed findings, and I'm happy to share those with you if you'd like, but wanted to know any other things on your agenda, didn't want to give you too long of a presentation. So here's just kind of the high level lessons we've learned from the findings from this project. The providing urban services in the UUA is complex and supported by a mix of service providers, agencies, and agencies and funding sources. There's not one general service provider funding. And those urban services are provided, are funded largely through dedicated revenues and not the county's general fund. So those in the urban unincorporated areas are paying for the enhanced service that they receive, such as through the Urban Roads Maintenance District and the Enhanced Share Patrol District. They're paying for the additional services they receive. There is a fiscal financial pressures that will affect all jurisdictions. Changing the service provider doesn't eliminate the financial pressures that will happen. The cost of services is going up and the current funding sources will not keep pace with those long-term funding needs. The assumptions used in the project based on conversations with the city and the county service providers is that there is an annual increase of about 6% increase in law enforcement costs and about 4% increase in roads infrastructure costs annually compared to the 3% revenue increase that's allowed with measure five and 50. So there's a gap that will continue to increase over time. The fiscal and service impacts are not the same in every area due to the location and infrastructure age. So basically what that's saying is that depending on the age of the neighborhood and whether or not they're, what the requirements were when the area developed, greater areas have greater need, or if the infrastructure's older, it will need to be replaced sooner rather than later. And we looked at a 20-year time period, so that was for balancing that . The size of organization matters for economies of scale. So in smaller cities like Tigard, in order for them to bring on large areas, additional population in their cities, they would need to create more services. Tigard, for example, does not have 24-7 records keeping for their police department. They contract currently with the county. If they were to have a larger population and take on additional needs, they probably would need to create a 24-7 records department. Whereas Beaverton has some of those additional services because it is a larger city, they're able to absorb the additional population a little easier, I guess. There are existing agreements that outline the roles and expectations for services as areas transition to cities, and that's what the urban planning area agreements are and the urban service agreements. But additional coordination is needed. For example, those documents don't necessarily have great detail about how roads would transfer, which roads would transfer, and the condition of those roads when they transfer. So those are all things that need additional coordination. And state law sets the rules for annexation, so it's not really up to, there are specific rules that need to be followed. The county can't initiate annexation, so that's really up to the residents of the cities. And all that being said, this is a really conceptual level preliminary study. REALLY A TECHNICAL EXERCISE. SO ADDITIONAL COORDINATION, MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS, CONVERSATIONS NEED TO OCCUR BEFORE THERE ARE ANY FUTURE CHANGES. LIKE I SAID, WE DIDN'T TALK WITH THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS. WE KEPT THEM UPDATED ON THE PROJECT BUT THEIR SERVICES WERE NOT PART OF THE STUDY. SO CONVERSATIONS WITH SPECIAL SERVICES WOULD NEED TO BE HAD. AND REALLY THE FINDINGS DON'T POINT TO A SINGLE SOLUTION. IT REALLY IS A CURRENT STATE ANALYSIS. And that's the big picture findings that I wanted to share with you. The next steps in the project is we should have a final report at the end of, or early this fall, and the lookbook will also be done around that time. And so that's, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. If you would like more detail, I'm happy to meet with you and I can share additional details if you're interested.

Thank you, it was a great presentation. Do commissioners have questions?

Commissioner Carlson. I was just wondering, I know that Washington County is kind of unique with how much urban area that the county serves. Are there any other counties in, probably not in Oregon, but in like-minded states, I'm thinking like Colorado or anything like that, that have something akin to that and have they addressed it in any particular way?

Yeah.

Yeah, just I've worked in Arizona and New Mexico, and they don't have the type of situation we have here. First of all, growth management makes a very big difference. And the only other kind of somewhat comparable state I would say would be Washington, even though they don't have the hard urban growth boundaries that Oregon has. But we're really unique in terms of you know, where Washington County was in the metropolitan area when Senate Bill 100 and growth management was passed. And then really the kind of cascading effects of the sewer district and then all the special districts that developed kind of using that model after that. So we're really in a unique situation.

I was just wondering if AOC, Association of Oregon Counties, I'm assuming there's a national association There's the national organization. I know Commissioner Schrader from Clackamas County is really involved there. I was wondering if just tapping into them to see if there's any other place in the United States to.

The research we did, because I did do a little of that research and didn't really find any.

Are there additional questions? Vice Chair Montepulco?

To be fair, it's not really a question. Just a thought. Because I just keep thinking about the residents and their experience and how confusing it is. I grew up in Aloha. Half my neighborhood was in BSD. The other half was HSD. Half was in the THPRD district. The other half had a park but was not in the THPRD district. But Hillsborough managed the park. And so everyone was confused all the time. And my friends went to a different school than I did. Right? And So, I mean, I just, like, who has the time to understand this, right? And, like, I'm a dork. I love this. It's fascinating, right? But I just really feel for our residents who are, like, just want basic services. I don't, I'm not entirely sure how to fix it besides continuing to communicate about, I mean, I will throw down for special districts. I think that they are amazing and have a really unique lane. And I fully understand that it's confusing to navigate and, like, When people want to complain, who the heck do they complain to? So, I mean, when I see all this, like, that's what I think about is the experience of a resident who's just trying to get some answers and how infuriating that is.

And that was one of the messages that kind of came out at the beginning, the early interviews we did about how confusing it is and there really isn't a good place to get this information out. understand who provides what. The city of Beaverton gets a lot of phone calls for county services. The county gets a lot of phone calls for what happens in the city of Beaverton because people don't know who to call. Same with the special districts. Part of the purpose of creating the lookbook is to provide something that people can look at and try and get a better understanding. And that need for education came out loud and strong. And it could be, we don't, as far as the project goes, we don't really have a next, we haven't been directed as to the next steps of the project, but having that education is another way that we could coordinate with the city to take that forward and do more information.

We do have a feature in our internal GIS mapping system where you click on a parcel and you can ask for more information and it will list all the special service districts. that apply to that particular parcel. And so that is something we could also look at is sharing some of that data. So somebody could look up their own address and then they would know which special service district do they need to contact. It'd be a quicker thing then, but also we were planning on promoting the lookbook as well.

I know, I mean, if you're a homeowner, then you have like overly one piece of paper that's really that allows, you know, your property taxes. But if you're not, then you don't have access to the same level of information. I'm curious, like the only examples I can think of are like the parks district and libraries. So like, as an Aloha resident, formerly, I was in the parks district, but people who weren't could still come and play in the pool, but they had to pay a premium for the library. We didn't have an Aloha library for a really long time. So I just went to the Hillsborough library, which is delightful. I didn't have to pay a premium, which is great. We should charge a library. So I'll be clear about that. But how are we, tell me about those costs and how that's, how's that working?

So one of the things we actually didn't study were those general government costs that the city of Beaverton has to provide. Those extra things that you get for being at risk. And those are the challenging services because they are accessible to everyone. You're not going to charge people to come to community things. Everyone does have access to the libraries, which everyone pays into the cooperative system. So it is very challenging. And then when you look at the tax rates of the areas people are paying, that's part of the education and helping to helping the leaders in the cities and counties and special districts and the residents understand what they're paying for, what they receive, and what the benefits are. That's kind of part of that education.

Thank you. I really appreciate that.

It's not a good answer.

No, no, no. It's not an easy answer.

Commissioner Rosenberry?

Thank you. I have my audio and my video on separate feeds right now. My question is similar and has been answered piecemeal a bit, but understanding what prompted this exercise and what the end goal that we're looking forward towards. I hear that we're trying to make it easier for residents to figure out where they fall and who's providing their services, but are we also trying to make recommendations to unincorporated areas to annex into a city?

So the original intent of the project is really, it's a technical exercise. We came up with findings. We did not come up with recommendations. So it was really to understand what it costs, how services are provided today and the cost of providing those services and what it would be in the future under the current county providing services. And then if there was to be a change and those areas were to be brought into cities. and what the cost would be. And so that's the base level of the work that we've done is provide those findings that basically it's the cost will continue to increase and the revenue will not. There's not a next step recommendation. We presented to the City of Tigard and City of Beaverton City Councils and the Washington County Board of Commissioners And each of them need to decide what they want with this information as far as next steps go. And the ARPA funding ends at the end of December of this year. So that's the other piece of it. So what comes next?

Commissioner Carlson? So I guess my question, I'm really glad that you did this. I think it's really prescient because I'd be curious to hear what Erin from your government affairs team thinks about how she could use this information going forward in maybe one of the next couple sessions of the legislature if they are revisiting the tax structure because counties are upside down, cities are upside down. We have to make a fix. So I'm glad that you've got these quantified numbers. But also, if there's any relook at Senate Bill 100 coming up, which there probably has to be, I am glad you have these, and I hope that she wields them like a stick. down there.

She has been involved in the conversations. I can't speak on her behalf about what she plans to do with them, but she is aware of the project and has been involved in the discussion.

Commissioner D'Amico?

Hi, thank you. I understand that there are state laws on annexation, but do the property owners have the option if they're an unincorporated Washington County in the Beaverton area, do they have the option to elect to be annexed in?

Yes, assuming they meet certain requirements that are outlined in state law. Thank you answer.

Yeah, I guess. And typically to annex to the city itself, you need to be contiguous, but if, um, for a special district, which we happen for show, um, actually handles that process and happen quite frequently, they'll have, they'll, they have kind of a service area. And as long as you're in the service area, you can annex to that special service district. Um, you know, THB or D is a typical example.

Do commissioners have additional questions? Thank you very much. It was a great presentation. Which we had better answers. The next item on the agenda is our second work session on the Draft Committee for Community and Current Citizenship. NOTIFICATION LETTER.

L.C.D.C.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, HELLO. FOR THE RECORD, I'M TODD MORKOWITZ, SENIOR PLANNER WITH L.U.T. 'S COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP. THIS IS THE FIRST OF THREE PRESENTATIONS THAT I'LL BE PROVIDING TONIGHT. THEY'LL ALL All in response to changes directed by the Board of Commissioners related to the community involvement in the planning process. So this item is for a letter to the Land Conservation and Development Commission, or LCDC, that statewide planning goal one requires that we provide no action by the PC is required or requested, and staff is only sharing this letter with the PC for informational purposes. So here's a brief overview on why this letter is needed. So as you're aware, the board in January of this year directed changes to the county's community involvement program through resolution and order 2614. In part, these changes included transitioning the county's Committee for Community Involvement to the Planning Commission Goal 1 requires that counties and cities that make this change must submit a letter to LCDC for the State Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee's review and recommendation. This letter must state the rationale for selecting this option and the mechanism to be used for an evaluation of the citizen involvement program. No formal approval by the state is required. So Goal 1 requires that counties and cities must have an officially recognized committee for citizen involvement. The committee's membership must meet these basic obligations and is responsible for assisting the government body with the development, implementation, and evaluation of a program that promotes and enhances citizen involvement in land use planning. Since the early 1980s, the county has had an acknowledged citizen involvement program focused on land use planning. It included two major components, community participation organizations, or CPOs, as well as an independent committee for community involvement comprised of leaders from these CPOs. In recent years, the board initiated a process to modernize the county's program. In doing so, it identified new CPO and CCI structures that the board determined better align with community engagement practices with the county's current needs, organizational capacity, and community values. Monitorization of the County's Community Involvement Program was formalized through the Board's adoption of RNO 2614. CPOs were dissolved and the CCI was transitioned to the Planning Commission. And in doing so, the Planning Commission was identified as the mechanism to be used for an evaluation of the Citizen Involvement Program as required by Goal 1. RNO 2614 provided this rationale for changing the County's program THE DRAFT LETTER BEFORE YOU THAT'S ADDRESSED TO LCDC INCLUDES BOTH THE MECHANISM TO BE USED FOR EVALUATING THE COUNTY'S PROGRAM AS WELL AS THE RATIONALE FOR MAKING THIS. SO THE DRAFT LETTER IS INCLUDED IN TODAY'S PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET AND JUST TO REITERATE WE ARE SHARING THIS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NO ACTION IS REQUIRED. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS? Okay, thank you very much. I think that wraps up our work session for today. So the next item on our agenda is an action item, which previously mentioned we don't typically have on the agenda. The action item is for the draft resolution for the Washington County Community Involvement Program also presented by Mr. Borkowitz. All right. Okay.

Thank you. So this is the second of three presentations relating to community involvement in the planning process. And again, I'm Todd Borkowitz for the record, senior planner with LUT's Community Planning Group. And this is an action item on a draft resolution and order relating to community involvement in the county's planning process that we are seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission on before we present it to the Board of Commissioners. So the draft resolution in order would carry out provisions of R&O 2614 that the board approved in January and that I referenced in my previous presentation. Those provisions include directing the Department of Land Use and Transportation to take all necessary actions to modify and update the county's former CPO and CCI programs. Statewide planning goal one, citizen involvement, requires counties and cities to adopt and publicize a program for citizen involvement THAT CLEARLY DEFINES THE PROCEDURES BY WHICH THE GENERAL PUBLIC WILL BE INVOLVED IN THE ONGOING LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS. SO AS THE COUNTY'S OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED COMMITTEE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT UNDER GOAL ONE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSISTING THE GOVERNING BODY WITH DEVELOPMENT OF A PROGRAM THAT PROMOTES AND ENHANCES CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN LAND USE PLANNING ASSISTING IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM AND EVALUATING THE PROCESS BEING USED FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. this draft rno is intended to formally repeal several outdated rnos to carry out the board's direction uh in uh rno 2614 and to satisfy goal one requirements three of these outdated rnos are listed here these are the same rnos that are proposed in ordinance 915 to be omitted from the appendices of two elements of the comprehensive plan This draft RNO would also repeal two RNOs related to neighborhood meetings. The requirements included within those RNOs are being updated and relocated to Section 203-3 of the Community Development Code in order to improve clarity and accessibility. And that's a proposal in Ordinance 15. So the draft RNO includes Exhibit A and titled Washington County Community or Citizen Involvement Program. Exhibit A would satisfy the Goal 1 requirement to adopt and publicize a community involvement program that defines how community members will be continually informed about and involved in the land use planning process. Exhibit A lists each of the six Goal 1 requirements for a local community involvement program and addresses how the county will achieve each requirement. And here are the six requirements. It includes requirement number three, public involvement in all phases of the planning process, which is defined as the planning work program, major land use or transportation projects, and the land use ordinance process. So the draft RNO, including Exhibit A, was included in today's PC packet. Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend authorization of the draft RNO including Exhibit A to the Board of Commissioners. And at the end of this presentation, we actually have a sample motion that the PC can use if it decides to take action on this item. With that, I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you.

Commissioners have questions? Commissioner Dust.

UNDER ADEQUATE FINANCIAL SUPPORT, IT SAYS IN THE PAST THAT FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION. NOW THAT IT APPEARS THAT LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION IS GOING TO HAVE GREATER RESPONSIBILITIES THAN THEY HAVE IN THE PAST TOWARDS CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT, HAS THAT LINE ITEM BEEN INCREASED OR ARE YOU BEING ASKED TO DO MORE WITH LESS?

NEW SPEAKER I'M GOING TO APPLICATE A RESPONSE TO THAT.

WE ACTUALLY HAD SOME POSITIONS RELATED TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN OUR BUDGET THAT HAD NOT YET BEEN FILLED. AND SO WE'RE ACTUALLY VERY PLEASED TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT ONE OF THOSE POSITIONS HAS RECENTLY BEEN FILLED. SO ADRIENNE WHO IS IN THE AUDIENCE IS OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER AND AT THE END OF OCTOBER SHE WILL BE TRANSITIONING TO A NEW POSITION COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT LEAD. We had the positions budgeted, just didn't, you know, we're anticipating some changes. And so I had waited until the desk was settling a little bit to proceed with filling those positions. So Adrienne has been hired. And then there's one additional position that once Adrienne is fully in her position, then we'll be proceeding with filling that as well.

Commissioner Carlson. I appreciate that you guys are kind of building the plane and flying it at the same time. Is there any reason why we have to make a decision today? I'm very concerned about from the OAO presentation. I kind of want to watch that to understand a little bit more about what our role is, what the county commissioners see about that. I just am a little bit nervous. I don't... it's tough for me to make a decision on something. I know it's just small, like rescinding these things, but it's, I just conceptually am not wrapping my head around to understand if we're in a good place on this or not. And that's more of an opinion question. Sure.

I can answer that. So the work that the Office of Access and Opportunity is doing is about the district-aligned community organizations and really has nothing to do with the Planning Commission. That action of transferring the CCI responsibilities over to the Commission was already accomplished in January as part of that resolution and order. So to my understanding, there won't be any conversation about the planning commission's ongoing role in these new citizen-aligned committees because I believe that relationship is essentially severed to a certain extent. So there's that. But also there are some other pressing ordinances that will potentially be amending sections that are THAT ARE SUBJECT TO ORDINANCE 915 AMENDMENT AND THOSE ARE RELATED TO HOUSING CHANGES AND THOSE HAVE TO BE IN PLACE OR AT LEAST ADOPTED BY JANUARY 1ST. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS ORDINANCE CHANGED SO WE CAN BUILD ON IT WITH THE NEXT ORDINANCE. SO THERE IS SOME URGENCY IN TERMS OF TIMING IN THAT REGARD.

NEW SPEAKER I'LL JUST ELEBRATE ON THAT TOO. SO WE ARE ASKING FOR PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. WE WILL BE BRINGING THIS TO THE BOARD. SOMETIME SOON. WE DON'T HAVE FULLY IDENTIFIED THE DATE YET BUT SHORTLY AFTER WE BRING ORDINANCE 915 TO THE BOARD. AND SO AT THAT TIME THE BOARD COULD DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH OR WITHOUT A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. THAT BEING SAID THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANOTHER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THIS MONTH IF NEEDED. IT WOULD BE THE ONLY ITEM THAT WE WOULD HAVE ON THE AGENDA BUT THAT IS AN OPTION.

THANK YOU.

VICE CHAIR MONTE BLANCO.

Carol, everything you said made perfect sense, except for I thought that one of our new roles as the CCI was to evaluate your department's community engagement, which may or may not include CPO 2.0.

So, my understanding is the district aligned committees are definitely name. Is that the name when you get focused on that? That's that's that's the kind of placeholder name that align committees will be focusing on county wide priorities and while planning issues may. come up that that is not a primary focus of those committees. And then I think it's also important to clarify that goal one, and we've received clarification and confirmation of this from DLCD staff, is the policy planning process through comprehensive planning policy up to ordinance adoption. It does not include review of individual land use applications. And so they wanted to make that very clear.

Thank you. I think you've had to tell me that twice.

Are there additional questions? I guess at this time, then, do we want to talk about CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION AFTER WE WATCH THE OIO PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND HAVE ANOTHER PLANNING COMMISSIONER MEETING OR DO COMMISSIONERS FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION?

I FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION MOSTLY BECAUSE The district-aligned committees, while I certainly have opinions on that, it is not in my role as a planning commission. Yeah.

Okay. So would you mind?

I will make a motion. I move that the Washington County Planning Commission recommend authorization of draft resolution and order number 26-XXX, including Exhibit A titled Washington County Community Involvement Program to the Board of Commissioners.

Do we have a second? I'll second. May we have the roll call?

Yes. Commissioner Carlson?

Yes.

Commissioner D'Amico?

Yes.

Commissioner Frey?

Yes.

Commissioner Jest?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenberry? Yes. Commissioner Whipps? Yes. Vice Chair Monteblanco?

Yes.

Chair Mori be due? Yes. Looks like we have eight in favor. The motion does pass.

Thank you. Okay. Next item on the agenda is deliberation associated with proposed ordinance 915. We started the process of reviewing ordinance 915 during the last meeting and had our public comment period. At this point, we are on to planning commission deliberations. So I wanted to open up the floor to understand what questions commissioners may have or deliberations commissioners may have.

I do have a A SMALL PRESENTATION, I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT PRIOR TO THAT. NEW SPEAKER PLEASE, YES, GO AHEAD. NEW SPEAKER SO I PROMISE THIS IS THE FINAL PRESENTATION RELATED TO COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS. SO AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, I'M TODD BORKWOOD, SENIOR PLANNER IN COMMUNITY PLANNING. AND THIS IS REALLY TO CONTINUE DELIBERATIONS ON ORDINANCE 915. So here's a brief refresher. The ordinance would amend several comprehensive plan elements, including the comprehensive framework plan for the urban area, the rural natural resources plan, the transportation system plan, several community plans, and the community development code. And the Board of Commissioners directed the changes to the program through RNO 2614, as I mentioned. including amendments to the comprehensive plan documents to reflect implementation of these changes. And these amendments are reflected in the proposed ordinance. On July 15th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the ordinance and received both oral and written testimony. After closing the hearing, members deliberated, asked several questions of staff and of the Office of Access and Opportunity. The Planning Commission then voted to continue the deliberations to today. In appropriation for today, staff developed written answers to those questions. Last week, we shared these answers with the Planning Commission and posted them online with a link in today's meeting agenda. So Ordinance 915 will be considered by the Board in evening hearing on August 25th. If the Board adopts the ordinance, we anticipate returning to the Planning Commission. THIS FALL TO FURTHER DISCUSS MORE DETAILS ABOUT HOW THE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM WILL BE IMPLEMENTED. SO THE NEXT THREE SLIDES JUST INCLUDE THE ANSWERS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S QUESTIONS FROM THE JULY 15TH MEETING. FIRST, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD ASKED FOR A MAP SHOWING COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARIES AND HOW THEY ALIGN WITH FORMER CPO BOUNDARIES. We created some new maps for you. We'll convey this information after answering the remaining questions. The Planning Commission then asked whether staff could better define the Planning Commission's roles in annually evaluating Goal 1 related to community involvement. We shared that at the end of each calendar year, we anticipate providing the Planning Commission with an annual report summarizing the community involvement activities related to Goal 1 And at those times, we'd ask the planning commission feedback and how the county can improve the goal one related community involvement. So the PC asked about recent state law changes to land use notices, neighborhood meetings and appeals and how they would impact the county's community involvement. We responded that staff is actually working on a. on a separate ordinance that would address recent state law changes on land use issues. And that ordinance is expected to be filed this fall. It'll come before the Planning Commission. And given the board's direction of having this ordinance, 915, ready for adoption this summer and the extensive work that's really being done by staff to analyze the impacts of the state law changes, the ordinances couldn't be put on the same timeline. So the Planning Commission then asked about creating a Planning Commissioner TOP DESCRIPTION THAT INCLUDES TASK RESPONSIBILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH SERVING AS THE CCI FOR GOAL ONE. WE RESPONDED TO THAT. THAT THIS MAY REQUIRE MORE THOROUGH DISCUSSION AT A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AND LASTLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ASKED FOR EXAMPLES FROM OTHER COUNTIES WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION SERVES AS A RECOGNIZED COMMITTEE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT UNDER GOAL ONE. We noted our research that Multnomah County and at least 13 other Oregon counties use their planning commission to answer CCI. Those counties are listed here. And for those counties, most CCI duties performed by them are consistent with typical planning commission rules. And returning to question one, here's that map of the planning commission requested that shows the 11 community plan areas relative to the boundaries of the former CPOs. So you can see here that most of the overlap is really in the eastern two thirds of the county. Here's a blow up of that area. The map on the left identifies former CPOs, the middle map shows community plans, and then the map on the right shows the overlap of the two. So these maps relate to the proposed requirement that neighborhood meetings be held within the same community plan area. as a proposed development instead of the same CPO. Community plan areas in general are smaller than the former CPO areas and do not extend across the entirety of the county. So given our answers, we're asking that the planning commission recommend or CONTINUE DELIBERATIONS ON THIS ORDINANCE AND AT THE END OF DELIBERATIONS, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 915 TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. LIKE WITH THE LAST ITEM, WE HAVE A SAMPLE MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN USE. SO WITH THAT, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO PUT ALL THE TIME AND ENERGY INTO ANSWERING QUESTIONS AND PROVIDING INFORMATION. VERY, VERY HELPFUL.

And Chair, more of you do, and Commissioners, I should also note that we also shared responses to questions from the Office of Access Opportunity, and those have been posted to our webpage.

Okay. At this time, let's move on to deliberation. What comments do Commissioners have about the ordinance?

I do have a couple of questions. As regards the annual review, it occurs to me that having a baseline of community involvement that we can compare against, I don't know, has that been established and what criteria were used to establish that baseline?

Thank you for that question, Commissioner Jess. We don't have a current baseline, so that'll be part of flushing out this whole community involvement plan. One of the documents that the county had previously prepared was shared with you as part of action item number one, the resolution in order, and that is the public involvement guide for transportation planning program and projects. And we plan to use that and build on that as an example and a guide for community participation with the rest of the planning and development services division and land use and transportation. There are many, many good best practices. And now that we will shortly have Hadrian joining our team, we're hoping that she can provide some of that training and background with you all as well as the rest of staff. But it's a best practice to do some baseline, collect some baseline data to determine who is currently participating in our outreach efforts. And then that would be one of the metrics that we would be sharing as part of our annual review. The point would be to identify if there are any gaps in certain groups, represented groups, either geographic, cultural, language that we're missing out as part of our current outreach efforts so that we can adjust and refocus and improve that in future years.

Thank you. There's no comments? Would anyone like to make a motion? Do commissioners feel like we need more information and would like to schedule a meeting on the 19th to discuss further, understanding that any questions we would have at that time would not there wouldn't be time to answer them prior to the presentation to the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Frey.

Not an answer to your question right there. So I can pause and let people answer that if there are any requests for that first.

No, go ahead.

I was just going to comment that it seems as if the recommendation is to move to a model that's been proven and is common in a number of other jurisdictions within our state. I think that my understanding is that those have been effective. Just in general, I think that the community can still be involved, and I think that the Planning Commission can field some of that involvement and represent people. JUST OVERALL, I WOULD SAY THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CHANGE. I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION IF WE'RE DONE WITH DELIBERATION.

COMMISSIONER CARLSON? THIS IS A QUESTION TO YOU GUYS. AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS ABOUT ADOPTING SOMETHING THAT ISN'T FLUSHED OUT REALLY FULLY. But I understand the urgency and I understand that it's an arcane system that we have that's maybe not functioning for the best of our population. But what level of iteration would we be able to help oversee? I mean, it sounds like we're going to be reviewing some metrics over year upon year. would we as a planning commission be able to weigh in and say, hey, we don't like what's happening here. We'd like to see that. What level of engagement or involvement would we have going forward in the iteration to make sure it is functioning as we would hope?

So at PRIOR, IN ADDITION TO THE ANNUAL REVIEW, WHENEVER WE HAVE A TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROJECT OR OTHER KIND OF PLANNING PROJECT THAT HAS A COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COMPONENT, THAT PLAN WOULD BE BROUGHT TO YOU AND THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN BEFORE IT'S EVEN EXECUTED. SO, YEAH. THAT TAKES AWAY SOME HEARTBREAK.

Yeah, I appreciate what people have said. I think the things that are outside of our control have been a bit frustrating, right? And I imagine so much of this is shaped by budget constraints, which we just got reminded about 5 and 50. So there are ripple effects to that. I am positive. Based on the robustness of the conversation that we had, especially at the last meeting, this is a board that's really committed to ensuring thoughtful community outreach and that losing what the CPOs used to be and the opportunity for what it could be is really exciting. And there are things that work. There are ways that people were able to engage that we are super mindful of and that we want to keep at the top of our minds. I think we're all going to watch this like a hawk a little bit. Excited to see what the Board of Commissioners come up with.

Additional comments? I think I'd just like to echo what my fellow commissioners have already expressed, that I have similar concerns about approving something that's not fully baked, but also acknowledge that the system we had had room to grow. And so, yeah, I just want to make a comment on the process would be helpful if we had maybe some opportunities to go over lessons learned after this. With that, would a commissioner like to make a motion? Commissioner Frey.

I move that the Washington County Planning Commission recommend approval of ordinance number 915 to the Board of Commissioners.

Do we have a second? Second. May we have the roll call, please?

Commissioner Carlson? Yes. Commissioner D'Amico?

Yes.

Commissioner Frye?

Yes.

Commissioner Just?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenberry? Yes. Commissioner Whipps?

Yes.

Vice Chair Monteblanco? Yes. Chair Moribidu? Yes. Looks like we have total of eight in favor? Motion does pass.

Thank you, Mr. Warquist. And thank you to all of staff who participated in providing information and helping us understand everything along the way. Next on the agenda is planning commission announcements. Do any commissioners have anything they'd like to share today? Okay. Seeing none, next item is adjournment. So without objection, we're adjourned. Thanks, everyone.

Sorry that we were so cranky and took so long.