NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT

Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning Section 155 N. First Ave., Suite 350, MS14 Hillsboro, OR 97124 503‐846‐3519 fax: 503‐846‐4412 www.co.washington.or.us

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURE TYPE: III COMMUNITY PLAN: Rural Natural Resource Plan CPO: 14 LAND USE DISTRICT(S): Existing: EFC (Exclusive Forest and Conservation) Proposed: EFU (Exclusive Farm use)

CASEFILE: 19‐058‐PA

Exhibit A APPLICANT: Betty Schmidlin

Vernonia, OR 97064

OWNER: Betty and Leonard Alfred Schmidlin Trust (Address above) REPRESENTATIVE/CONTACT PERSON: Dave Hunnicutt Oregonians in Action Legal Center

Tigard, OR 97281

SITE ADDRESS: 53739 Nehalem Highway South ASSESSOR MAP AND LOT: 3N400B001500 and 1700 LOCATION: South of Columbia County line on Nehalem Highway South (NW Highway 47) SIZE: 153.31 acres

PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT: Change the land use designation of the subject site from EFC (Exclusive Forest and Conservation) to

EFU (Exclusive Farm Use), consistent with site history of farm use Public hearings will be in the auditorium of the Charles D. Cameron Public Services Building, 155 N. First Ave., Hillsboro, as follows:

• April 17, 2019 before the Planning Commission at 6:30 p.m. • May 21, 2019 before the Board of Commissioners at 10:00 a.m. At the May 21 public hearing, the Board may choose to adopt or reject the proposed amendment or continue the hearing to a future date.

All interested persons may appear and provide written or oral testimony (written testimony may be submitted before or at a hearing). Failure to raise an issue in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to provide the decision maker opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Only those making an appearance of record shall be entitled to appeal. Public hearings are conducted in accordance with rules of procedure adopted by the Board of Commissioners. Reasonable time limits apply. Assistive listening devices, language or sign language interpreters can be arranged. Please notify the County at least 48 hours prior to the hearing date (no later than 5 p.m. on the preceding Monday) if you require any of these services by calling 503‐846‐3519 or 7‐1‐1 for Telecommunications Relay Service.

S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\Plan Amendments\CASE FILES\2019\Schmidlin 19_058_PA EFC to EFU\Board\R&O and Board SR\19‐058_PA_HrgNotice_Ex_A.docx

2

RULES OF PROCEDURE The public hearing will be conducted in accordance with the following rules of procedure as adopted by the Board of Commissioners. Reasonable time limits will be imposed. 1. Summary of applicable substantive review criteria 2. Summary of staff report 3. Applicant's presentation 4. Testimony in favor of proposal 5. Testimony in opposition to proposal 6. Applicant's rebuttal testimony Pursuant to ORS 197.763(6), if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. Such extension shall be subject to the limitations of ORS 215.427. When the Review Authority reopens a record to admit new evidence or testimony, any person may raise new issues relative to the new evidence, testimony or criteria for decision making that apply to the matter at issue. Applicable criteria, application materials and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant are available for inspection at the Department of Land Use & Transportation. The staff report will be available for inspection at the same location, at least seven days prior to the hearing. Inspection of the materials is free of charge and copies can be provided at reasonable cost. A staff report will also be available online at least seven (7) days prior to each hearing at the following links: Planning Commission: http://www.co.washington.or.us/PlannComm/ Board of Commissioners: http://www.co.washington.or.us/BOC/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Anne Kelly, Senior Planner 503‐846‐3583 fax: 503‐846‐4412 [email protected]

SUBSTANTIVE APPLICABLE CRITERIA: State:

Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12

Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660‐012‐0060)

Washington County:

Rural Natural Resource Plan Policies 1, 2, 6, 10, 14, 15, 16, 22, 26

Transportation System Plan Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10

Community Development Code, Sections 203 (Processing… Development Applications), 204 (Notice), 340 (EFU) 342 (EFC), 421 (Flood Plains and Drainage Hazard Areas); 422 (Significant Natural Resources)

NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER.

Columbia County

Washington County SITE:

Proposed change from EFC to EFU

anneke

Typewritten Text

Exhibit B

anneke

Typewritten Text

Exhibit C 1

Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services • Long Range Planning

155 N. First Ave., Suite 350, MS14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: 503-846-3519 • fax: 503-846-4412

www.co.washington.or.us/lut • [email protected]

May 13, 2019

To: Washington County Board of Commissioners From: Andy Back, Manager Planning and Development Services Subject: PLAN AMENDMENT 19-058-PA:

SCHMIDLIN RURAL PLAN AMENDMENT

STAFF REPORT

For the May 21, 2019 Board of Commissioners Hearing (The public hearing will begin no sooner than 10:00 a.m.)

I. OVERVIEW The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the Rural Natural Resource Plan (RNRP) designation of two Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC) lots to Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). The subject lots have been in farm use since 1921. This staff report provides an overview of the request. The staff report prepared for the April 17 Planning Commission (PC) hearing (Exhibit C 2) provides more detailed findings that support approval of this request as recommended by staff and the PC. II. PROPERTY INFORMATION Applicant: Betty Schmidlin

Applicant’s Representative: Dave Hunnicutt, Oregonians in Action Legal Center

Property Location: Immediately south of the Columbia County line on Nehalem Highway South (NW Highway 47)

Address: 53739 Nehalem Highway South

Map and Tax Lots: 3N400B00: 1500 and 1700

Size: 153.31 acres

Board of Commissioners Staff Report 19-058-PA Schmidlin Plan Amendment

August 14, 2017 Page 2 of 2

III. RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Commission Recommendation After the April 17 hearing, the PC voted unanimously to recommend Board of Commissioners (Board) approval of this request, based upon the facts and findings in the staff report prepared for the PC hearing (Exhibit C 2). State law requires the Board to make the final decision for plan amendments involving rural resource farm or forest lands (EFU, AF-20 and EFC lands). Staff Recommendation In the staff report for the PC hearing, staff made findings that the subject plan amendment request demonstrates compliance with applicable criteria. Staff recommends Board approval of this request. IV. BACKGROUND The subject property and neighboring lands in Washington County were zoned F-1 (Agricultural) prior to designation as EFC in 1983 when the County’s Rural Natural Resource plan was adopted. In its definition of agricultural land, the state references soils in specific classes, but also land in other soil classes suitable for farm use considering factors such as soil fertility, accepted farming practices and suitability for grazing. While the site does not include soil classes specifically noted in the definition, it meets defined alternatives for consideration as agricultural land based on almost a century of accepted farm practices – including production of crops and grazing areas (suggesting productive soil), farm animals, dairy and eggs. The subject site may also meet definitions of forest land, however, in a prior case involving land that could be considered either farm or forest, a County determination to prioritize farm preservation over forest preservation was upheld by a Land use Board of Appeals (LUBA) order. That order further emphasized that both Statewide Planning Goal 3 and RNRP Policy 15 express the need to designate agricultural land EFU. As indicated in the staff report for the PC hearing (Exhibit C 2) the subject site meets criteria within RNRP Policy 1 for plan amendments involving a change from EFC to EFU, and qualifies as EFU independent of future use considerations. The attached PC staff report (Exhibit C 2) and memorandum dated April 17 (Exhibit C 3) provide additional information and detailed findings. VI. CONCLUSION Evidence and analysis provided by the applicant and staff within attached materials demonstrate that the proposed plan amendment conforms to applicable provisions of Statewide Planning Goals, the Transportation Planning Rule, and Washington County’s Rural Natural Resource and Transportation System Plans. Staff therefore recommends that the Board approve this plan amendment request. S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\Plan Amendments\CASE FILES\2019\Schmidlin 19_058_PA EFC to EFU\Board\R&O and Board SR\19-058-PA_Board_SR_Ex_C1.docx

Attachments: A – Table of Regulations B – Transportation Report

Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS14 Hillsboro, OR 97124 503-846-3519

CASEFILE NO. 19-058-PA Staff Report and Recommendation For the Planning Commission Hearing on: April 17, 2019

PROCEDURE TYPE: _III_ COMMUNITY PLAN: Rural Natural Resource Plan CPO: 14 LAND USE DISTRICT(S): Existing: Exclusive Forest Conservation (EFC) Proposed: Exclusive Farm Use (EFU)

APPLICANT: Betty Schmidlin

Vernonia, OR 97064

OWNER: Betty and Leonard Alfred Schmidlin Trust (Address above) REPRESENTATIVE/CONTACT PERSON: Dave Hunnicutt Oregonians in Action Legal Center

Tigard, OR 97281

SITE ADDRESS: 53739 Nehalem Highway South ASSESSOR MAP AND LOT: 3N400B001500 and 1700 LOCATION: South of Columbia County line on Nehalem Highway South (NW Highway 47) SIZE: 153.31 acres

REQUEST: Change the land use designation of the subject site from Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC) to Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) consistent with the property’s history of farm use RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the facts and findings provided in this report, staff finds that the applicant has adequately demonstrated compliance with applicable Oregon Statewide Planning Goals, the State Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060), Washington County Rural Natural Resource Plan Policies and Implementing Strategies, Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) Goals, and the Washington County Community Development Code (CDC) as these apply to quasi-judicial Plan Amendments. Additionally, the applicant has provided evidence that adequate services can be provided by the Banks Fire District, Washington County Sheriff, and Vernonia School District, subject to compliance with related requirements determined through any future development application. Further, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) indicates no concern from a traffic-generation standpoint with respect to the existing access on Nehalem Highway South (an ODOT facility), stating that additional trip generation is negligible. Staff recommendation to the Planning Commission: Recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve this plan amendment request.

anneke

Typewritten Text

anneke

Typewritten Text

anneke

Typewritten Text

anneke

Typewritten Text

Exhibit C 2

Casefile No. 19-058-PA Staff Report for the April 17, 2019

Planning Commission Hearing Page 2 of 17

I. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS This quasi-judicial plan amendment is subject to compliance with provisions of both the state and County as follows: State – Statewide Planning Goals, Transportation Planning Rule (TPR – OAR 660-012-0060); Washington County – Rural Natural Resource Plan (RNRP), Transportation System Plan (TSP), and Community Development Code (CDC). Staff notes that applicants are not asked to address Statewide Planning Goals that are otherwise addressed by the applicant’s findings of compliance with the RNRP. Additionally, when useful for context, this report may include staff findings addressing other criteria that the applicant was not asked to address. This report has been organized to address regulations of the above by topic as follows: A. Citizen Involvement B. Land Use Planning C. Housing D. Transportation E. Other Public Facilities and Services

II. AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS AND AGENCIES Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation Banks Fire District Washington County Sheriff Vernonia School District Columbia County Oregon Department of Forestry

III. BACKGROUND

Reason for Request Applicant: See page 6 of the applicant’s narrative. Staff: Owners of the subject site are requesting this plan amendment in order to seek subsequent land use approval for an accessory dwelling for a family member who will help with the farm. That use is not allowable on land designated EFC, but may be approved on EFU land through a Type II review. Property and Vicinity Details Applicant: See application narrative and map on pages 3 and 21. Staff: The 153.31-acre subject property is in northern unincorporated Washington County at the Columbia County line (See Figures 1 and 2). The site is made up of tax lots 3N400B001500 and 1700 and accesses Nehalem Highway South (NW Highway 47), an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) principal arterial.

0



Figure 1: Site Location at Northern County Line

Columbia County

Washington County

Approximate Site Location

Columbia County

Washington County

Figure 2: Site and Vicinity: A Mix of Forested and Cleared Areas

Figure 4: 1970 County Map Showing Site and Bordering Lands as F-1 (Agricultural)

Columbia County

Washington County Washington County

Columbia County

EFC

EFC

EFC

EFC EFC

EFC

EFC

EFC

EFC

Figure 3: Site and Vicinity

Site and nearby lands in Washington County are now EFC and identified as Wildlife Habitat; creeks indicate

Water Areas and Wetlands and Fish and Wildlife Habitat



The Rural Natural Resource Plan identifies the subject site and bordering properties to the west, south and east as EFC, and shows onsite Significant Natural Resources (Wildlife Habitat; Water Areas and Wetlands and Fish and Wildlife Habitat - See Figure 3). Lands to the north in Columbia County are mostly zoned Primary Forest, though isolated nearby properties similar in size to the subject site are zoned Forest Agriculture or Primary Agriculture (See Figure 5). Within both Washington County and Columbia County, surrounding lands are a mixture of forested and cleared areas. The site appears to include three forested areas totaling about 52 acres. Photos and a submitted site plan show the remainder of the site as pasture and fields. Lot 1700 contains one home, built in 1962, and several agricultural buildings. Onsite Agricultural History Applicant: See page 3 of the applicant’s narrative Staff The subject property and neighboring lands within Washington County were identified as F-1 (Agricultural District) prior to their designation as EFC in 1983 when the County’s Rural Natural Resource plan was adopted (See Figures 3 and 4, above). The applicant has provided a timeline of onsite agricultural operations dating back to 1921. Testimony Staff: No comment letters have been received in response to public notice of this Plan Amendment request as of the completion date of this Staff Report. Written testimony submitted after the completion of the report and preparation of the Planning Commission (PC) packet will be provided to the PC for review and inclusion in the record at the public hearing.

IV. FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE

A. Citizen Involvement

1. Statewide Planning Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement 2. Washington County RNRP: Policy 2 – Citizen Involvement 3. Washington County CDC:

Section 203 – Processing Type I, II, and III Development Applications Section 204 – Notice

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



1. Statewide Planning Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement 2. Washington County RNRP: Policy 2 – Citizen Involvement

Applicant: See pages 6 and 18 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Statewide Planning Goal 1 is intended to provide opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Goal 1 is implemented by Washington County RNRP Policy 2, which states:

It is the policy of Washington County to encourage citizen participation in all phases of the planning process and to provide opportunities for continuing involvement and effective communication between citizens and their county government.

Through compliance with CDC Sections 203 and 204, which provide specific standards to implement RNRP Policy 2 and thus Statewide Planning Goal 1, citizen involvement requirements are addressed. Findings of compliance with CDC Sections 203 and 204 are provided immediately below.

3. Washington County CDC Section 203 – Processing Type I, II, and III Development Applications Section 204 – Notice Applicant: See page 15 of the applicant’s narrative. Staff: CDC Section 202-3.3 allows most Type III quasi-judicial plan amendments to be

decided by the Planning Commission (PC), but consistent with ORS 215.431(5)(b) it requires a Board decision for amendments such as this one, involving farm or forest resource land (EFU or EFC land). Like all quasi-judicial plan amendments, such proposals must still undergo a public hearing before the PC, but the required Board hearing affords additional opportunity for citizen involvement. Both settings allow for public testimony. In accordance with Section 203-3.3, after the April 17 PC hearing, this request will be heard by the Board May 21.

CDC Section 203-6.2 requires that a staff report be available at least seven days in advance of each hearing, and mailed to the applicant and all parties requesting a copy. A staff report was made available/delivered as required above on April 10, seven days prior to the scheduled April 17 PC hearing. A staff report will again be made available seven days before the scheduled Board hearing. Interested parties are therefore afforded time to review the report and prepare related testimony prior to hearings as intended by this CDC section. For rural applications reviewed through a Type III procedure, including the proposed plan amendment, CDC Section 204 requires the applicant to post a sign onsite advertising the proposal. The applicant has provided an affidavit establishing compliance with that requirement.



CDC Section 204 also requires that the County: • Mail notice of hearings at least 20 days prior to the first hearing, to the applicable

Citizen Participation Organization (CPO) leader and to all who own property within 1,000 feet of the subject site; and

• Publish notice of hearings in a newspaper at least 10 days prior the first hearing. Required notice was mailed to neighboring property owners March 21. Staff provided the requisite CPO notice to the County’s Community Engagement Coordinator, per established practice when the CPO for a subject area is inactive, on March 13. Notice was published in The Oregonian April 5.

B. Land Use Planning

1. Statewide Planning Goals Goal 2 – Land Use Planning Goal 3 – Agricultural Lands Goal 4 – Forest Lands Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources

2. Washington County RNRP: Policy 1 – The Planning Process Policy 6 – Water Resources Policy 10 – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Policy 14 – Plan Designations Policy 15 – Exclusive Farm Lands Policy 16 – Exclusive Forest Lands

3. Washington County CDC: Section 340 – Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Section 342 – Exclusive Forest Conservation (EFC) Section 421 – Flood Plain and Drainage Hazard Area Development

Section 422 – Significant Natural Resources

Land Use Planning – Summary of Findings Staff finds that Land Use Planning requirements have been addressed in compliance with above listed Statewide Planning Goals, and the Washington County RNRP and CDC. See more detailed findings for applicable criteria/regulations below.

1. Statewide Planning Goals

Goal 2 – Land Use Planning Staff: Goal 2 outlines basic procedures of Oregon’s statewide land use planning program. It

requires local jurisdictions to have a comprehensive plan and adopt ordinances to implement the plan. Goal 2 also requires that local plans and ordinances be coordinated with those of other jurisdictions and agencies.

As required by Goal 2, Washington County has an adopted comprehensive plan that implements Statewide Planning Goals. The County also has adopted ordinances that implement the Comprehensive Plan, mainly through the CDC and for rural areas, the RNRP. Findings below for RNRP Policy 1 (The Planning Process) further address compliance with Goal 2.



To allow for inter-agency/jurisdictional coordination consistent with Goal 2, copies of this plan amendment request were provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Metro and ODOT March 13, and to other service providers, jurisdictions and agencies with potential interest March 21.

Goal 3 – Agricultural Lands Goal 4 – Forest Lands Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources Applicant: See pages 18 and 19 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Regarding Goals 3, 4 and 5:

Statewide Planning Goal 3 defines agricultural lands and requires counties to preserve and maintain them through zoning. Goal 4 defines forest lands and requires counties to adopt policies and ordinances that will conserve them for forest use. Goal 5 establishes a process for local jurisdictions to inventory, evaluate and protect through land use regulations, natural (and other) resources such as the Wildlife Habitat and Water Areas and Wetlands and Fish and Wildlife Habitat that appear to exist onsite.

These Goals are implemented by Washington County RNRP Policies 6 (Water Resources), 10 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat), 14 (Plan Designations), 15 (Exclusive Farm Lands) and 16 (Exclusive Forest Lands). These policies are further implemented by CDC Sections 340 (Exclusive Farm Use or EFU), 342 (Exclusive Forest Conservation or EFC), 421(Flood Plain and Drainage Hazard Area Development) and 422 (Significant Natural Resources).

Findings of compliance with implementing provisions of above noted RNRP policies and CDC sections, below, establish compliance with Goals 3, 4 and 5.

2. Washington County RNRP:

Policy 1 – The Planning Process Applicant: See pages 2-5 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Policy 1(The Planning Process) allows landowners to initiate quasi-judicial

amendments to land use districts on the RNRP and outlines applicable approval criteria. For plan amendments from EFC to EFU, Policy 1 reflects Implementing Strategies as follows:

The County will… p. Require that plan map amendments meet the following criteria:

1. Amendments from Exclusive Farm Use to Exclusive Forest and Conservation, or, Exclusive Forest and Conservation to Exclusive Farm Use shall: A. Determine the appropriate District considering the following:

I. Soils types as related to Goal 3 and forest classifications as related to Goal 4;

II. The predominant use of the property;



III. The predominant use and land use district of the surrounding properties;

IV. What kinds of crops or forest uses would be possible on the parcel given the size and conflicts with adjacent uses;

V. Physical characteristics of the site; VI. Whether the site is or has been on a farm or forest deferral;

and B. Require that the parcel be contiguous to land with the same plan

map designation being requested or be 76 acres or more in area… Implementing Strategy 1. p. 1. A. I (soil types): Related to soil type, OAR 660-033 (regarding Goal 3) defines agricultural land in Western Oregon as predominantly Class I- IV soils, but also as land in other soil classes suitable for farm use considering factors such as soil fertility, accepted farming practices and suitability for grazing. The applicant has provided the following timeline of onsite farming practices, many concurrent: • 1921-1955: dairy • 1940s, 1950s: strawberries • 1955-1970: chickens and eggs • 1961-1965: sheep • 1965-present: cattle and hay • 1980s, 1990s: red clover hay and seed • 1990s: oats, barley, wheat

While the subject site does not include any soils within classes Class I-IV, it meets alternatives for consideration as farmland based on almost a century of accepted farm practices – including production of crops and grazing areas (suggesting productive soil), and farm animals, dairy and eggs.

Implementing Strategy 1. p. 1. A. II (predominant use): The site has been operated as a farm or ranch since the 1920s. Predominant use of the property for over 50 years has been cattle ranching and associated pastures.

Implementing Strategy 1. p. 1. A. III (Use and district of surrounding properties): The applicant reports that primary uses on adjacent parcels in both Washington County and Columbia County are forestry and residential. Most nearby properties in Washington County are designated EFC, though a mile to the southwest, some AF-20 land exists (an exclusive farm use district). Nearby lands in Columbia County are mostly zoned Primary Forest (PF-80), but isolated properties similar in size to the subject site are zoned Forest Agriculture (FA-80) or Primary Agriculture (PA-80) (See Figure 5, below).



Implementing Strategy 1. p. 1. A. IV (crops or forest uses that would be possible onsite given the size and conflicts with adjacent uses): Narrative notes that the Washington County Soil Survey shows the soil class (VI) mapped on the subject property as useful for pasture. Much of subject cattle ranch is made up of pasture.

The applicant reiterates a history of additional farm crops grown onsite, including strawberries, clover, grains and hay, and notes that the site would be suitable for Christmas trees.

Given timber operations nearby and onsite streams and habitat areas, it is likely that the site could support forestry and related uses such as recreation and/or conservation. As a private property, however, it would be up to the owner to choose to pursue such uses. The applicant reports there is no intention to modify the existing agricultural use. Implementing Strategy 1. p. 1. A. V (physical characteristics of the site): Based on a 2016 County air photo, rough measurements show the three main areas of onsite forestation total about 52 acres of the 153.31-acre property. Photos and a submitted site plan show the remainder of the site as pasture and fields. Contours available on the County’s electronic mapping system indicate that cleared areas are gently sloping to relatively flat, while forested areas are more sloped. Narrative states that cattle are allowed to roam the entire acreage. Lot 1700 contains one home, built in 1962, and several agricultural buildings. Implementing Strategy 1. p. 1. A. VI (whether in farm deferral): The applicant’s narrative explains that the subject site, excluding a one-acre home site, has been in farm deferral since the inception of that program and continues to meet associated income requirements. Staff notes that Assessor’s records in the County’s electronic system indicate farm deferral status on the larger subject lot (1700), which measures 135.36 acres. Smaller subject lot 1500, approximately 18 acres, is shown only as vacant forest land. Regardless, the applicant’s site plan shows lot 1500 as hay field/pasture. County air photos suggest that about 11 acres of onsite pasture is within lot 1500 and clearly part of the farm operation.

PF-80

PF-80 PF-80

PA-80

PA-80 FA-80

FA-80 FA-80

FA-80

RR-5

Columbia County

Figure 5: Land Use Designations/Zoning in Vicinity

EFC R-COM

EFC

EFC AF-20

EFC Washington County



Implementing Strategy 1. p. 1. B (parcel must be contiguous to other EFU land or at least 76 acres): At over 153 acres, the subject site is more than twice the minimum size required by Implementing Strategy 1. p. 1. B for designation as EFU, and need not be adjacent to other EFU land.

Policy 6 – Water Resources Applicant: See pages 6-7 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Policy 6 relates to surface and groundwater maintenance and improvement.

Implementing Strategy 6. a. 5 (water supply for all users): For quasi-judicial plan amendments, this Implementing Strategy normally requires well information for properties within a half mile, however it states:

Well logs are not required for quasi-judicial plan amendments when the designation change [emphasis added by staff] will not result in an increase in density (i.e., EFU to EFC plan amendments).

The proposed designation change alone, from EFC to EFU, will not allow for an increase in lot numbers or in outright allow additional density because standards for both districts specify an 80-acre minimum lot size. The example noted within the implementing strategy, above, suggests that such changes are not likely its focus. For comparison, a change from EFC or EFU to AF-5 would allow for increased density outright in the form of additional lots at four to five acres each. It is likely that this implementing strategy is aimed more at situations like the latter. Nevertheless, the applicant has submitted information consistent with the above Implementing Strategy, that suggests a future well would not significantly impact neighboring wells. If the applicant seeks a new well for a future dwelling (see dwelling-related findings on pages 14 and 15 of this report), related groundwater protections will be addressed through separate permit requirements of the Oregon Water Resources Department. Implementing Strategies 6. b. and c. (surface and groundwater quality and stream protection): A septic system will not be provided at the plan amendment stage. Related groundwater protections of this implementing strategy, however, will be addressed in connection with any future request for a farm-assistance dwelling, through septic system permitting requirements of the Environmental Health division of the Washington County Department of Health and Human Services. This Implementing Strategy also specifies that natural stream channels should be maintained wherever possible and emphasizes the use of nonstructural controls when modifications are necessary. Two creeks appear to run north-south within the property – one along the westerly border and one along the highway in the east end of the site. The existing access road crosses the easterly creek. The applicant intends



to use that existing road to serve any future farm-assistance dwelling and does not propose to modify the access or its stream crossing. Staff finds that this plan amendment complies with provisions of Policy 6, and intended future development can feasibly comply as well.

Policy 10 – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Applicant: See pages 7-8 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Implementing Strategies of Policy 10 require the County to:

• Establish standards for development in areas defined as significant fish and wildlife habitat to assure their conservation;

• Apply recommendations of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan to rural development applications, including mitigations for effects on Big Game Range within EFC and EFU areas;

• Implement recommendations of the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program for rural areas to promote efforts to enhance and conserve significant riparian habitat corridors; and

• Allow activities customarily conducted in conjunction with commercial farm and forest practices in areas designated as Fish and Wildlife Areas.

Consistent with Policy 10, standards within CDC Section 422 (Significant Natural Resources) have been established for development within fish and wildlife habitat areas. Development standards of Section 422, however, are not directly applied through a plan amendment request since it is not a development proposal. The Rural Natural Resource Plan shows onsite Significant Natural Resources: Wildlife Habitat on the entire site and two swaths indicated as Water Areas and Wetlands and Fish and Wildlife Habitat running north-south within the westerly border and along the highway in the east end of the site (See Figure 3). As indicated above, activities customarily associated with commercial farm activities are allowed within resource areas, but a future land use application for a farm-assistance dwelling would be required to establish compliance with Section 422. Since the applicant plans to site that dwelling along the existing onsite road outside of water-related habitat, and does not intend to modify the existing stream crossing, potential impacts of that development are likely to be minimal and therefore could feasibly comply with Section 422. Compliance will be assured at the development review stage.

Policy 14 – Plan Designations Applicant: See pages 8-9 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Policy 14 pertains to the County’s Comprehensive Plan map designations for rural

lands and provision of associated land use regulations. It governs the County’s initial determination of lands as EFU vs. EFC based on criteria largely the same as those of Policy 1. Redundant requirements of the two Policies are not repeated here.



Implementing Strategy 14 a. 1. states: The county will: a. Designate Natural Resource lands in the following manner:

1. Lands which meet the definitions and criteria for agricultural lands contained in LCDC Goal 3 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 05 shall be designated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU)] and lands which meet the LCDC Goal 4 definition of forest land shall be designated Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC)…

As addressed under Implementing Strategy 1. p. 1. A. I, earlier, the subject site appears to meet Goal 3 criteria applicable to designation as EFU. Policy 14 specifies that such lands shall be designated EFU. (See related findings under Policies 1 and 15, above and below).

Policy 15 – Exclusive Farm Lands Applicant: See page 9 of the applicant’s narrative. Staff: Policy 15 (Exclusive Farm Lands) states:

It is the policy of Washington County to conserve and maintain agricultural lands for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest management and open space. Exceptions to this policy may be allowed pursuant to… applicable plan amendment criteria in Policy 1. Implementing Strategies The county will: a. Conserve agricultural land in accordance with Oregon State Law, Oregon

Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 215 and LCDC Goal 3 (agricultural lands) by the adoption and implementation of an Exclusive Farm Use District (EFU) consistent with these requirements.

b. Place agricultural lands in the Exclusive Farm Use District unless an

exception to LCDC Goal 3 is provided pursuant to the LCDC Goal 2 Exception Process (OAR Chapter 660, Division 04).

h. Maintain agricultural lands in blocks large enough to encourage and

maintain commercial agricultural activities when considering Plan Amendments...

As previously described, the subject 153-acre site has been in continuous farm use since the early 1920s and in fact was zoned F-1 (Agricultural District) prior to adoption of the RNRP in 1983. Conserving and maintaining this property for farm use by amending its designation from EFC to EFU is consistent with Implementing Strategy 15 a., b., and h., and with the intent of Policy 15 overall.



Findings within the Final Opinion and Order for past LUBA Case No. 90-081 (pp. 19-20) provide clarification. In that case, appellants of a Washington County-approved amendment from EFC to EFU: • Questioned whether the applicant proved need for the change of land use

designation; and • Argued that the change was not necessary to increase farm use since farming can

be practiced in both EFU and EFC. The County Board responded that:

…need for the change is not the issue but rather need for the use. Since Policy 15 states a need for conservation of agricultural land, sufficient need has been shown.

LUBA responded in agreement, stating:

Rural Plan Policy 15 (Exclusive Farm Land) states the county's policy is "to conserve and maintain agricultural lands for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest management and open space." Additionally, implementing strategies a and b require the county to designate agricultural lands EFU. …the "need" to be demonstrated and considered is a need to designate the subject property for exclusive farm use. In this sense, both Goal 3 and Rural Plan Policy 15 express a "need" to designate agricultural land for exclusive farm use. …In addition, the county found there is a greater need to preserve agricultural land for farm use than forest land for forest use...

Staff believes that approval of the current plan amendment request would be consistent with determinations of the above referenced LUBA Opinion and Order.

Policy 16 – Exclusive Forest Lands Applicant: See pages 10-11 of the applicant’s narrative. Staff: Policy 16 (Exclusive Forest Lands) states:

It is the policy of Washington County to conserve and maintain forest lands for forest uses consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest management and open space. Exceptions to this policy may be allowed pursuant to… applicable plan amendment criteria in Policy 1. Implementing Strategies The county will: a. Retain forest land for commercial forest management and protection of

sensitive areas (watersheds, wildlife habitats) in an Exclusive Forest and Conservation Land Use District (EFC) in accordance with LCDC Goal 4; OAR Chapter 660, Division 06; and the legislative purposes of ORS Chapters 197 and 215.



b. Require that conversion of forest lands designated for Exclusive Forest and Conservation to uses not authorized in OAR Chapter 660, Division 06 be preceded by a plan amendment pursuant to the provisions of Policy 1.

While Policy 16 is intended to protect forest lands for forest uses, it also requires attention to the need for agricultural products. Findings above under Policy 15 establish that need. Policy 16 allows for conversion from EFC, however, through a plan amendment, subject to Policy 1 (see findings of compliance under Policy 1). Both farm and forest protections are important to the County and throughout Oregon. Land that is the subject of this plan amendment request meets the Goal 4 definition of forest land and the Goal 3 definition of farm land (see findings under Policy 15, above). As discussed under Policy 15, however, in a prior case involving land that could be considered either farm or forest, a County determination to prioritize farm preservation over forest preservation was upheld by LUBA. Based on that and findings within Policies 1, 14, 15 and 16, staff finds that EFU is a more appropriate designation for the subject site than EFC. The subject site has no recent history of forest management, commercial farming operations on the subject site predate its 1983 designation as EFC by over 60 years, and as indicated above the site was formerly zoned agricultural.

3. Washington County Community Development Code (CDC): Section 340 – Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) 340-1 – Intent and Purpose 340-4.1 – Permitted Uses which are exempt from [farm/forest impact test requirements of]

Section 340-4.3: C. Dwelling Unit(s) occupied by a relative of the farm operator or farm

operator's spouse who assists or will assist with the management of the commercial farm operation…

Applicant: See pages 16-17 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Per CDC Section 340-1, which implements RNRP Policy 15 and related state rules, the EFU district is intended to maintain commercial agricultural land for farm use consistent with needs for agricultural products, forests and open spaces. This district is also intended to establish criteria and standards for farm use and related supportive uses that are deemed appropriate.

As one way to preserve viability of commercial farming, CDC Section 340 allows as an appropriate supportive use, a dwelling specifically for a relative of the farm operator who will assist with farm management (340-4.1. C.). Apart from this plan amendment request, but contingent on its approval, the applicant intends to seek future land use approval for such a dwelling. The applicant reports that the farm operator is aging and needs daily assistance with farm operations, without which ongoing commercial farming will be difficult. Longstanding commercial agricultural use of the site could therefore potentially be



jeopardized without a plan amendment to EFU, since no dwelling to accommodate farm assistance is permissible under the existing EFC designation. While future approval for the desired dwelling would occur outside the plan amendment process, staff believes it provides important context for the current application. Independent of that consideration, however, staff believes that findings under Policies 1, 14, 15 and 16 establish that the subject site qualifies as farm land and justify its designation as EFU to preserve it as such.

Section 342 – Exclusive Forest Conservation (EFC) 342-1 – Intent and Purpose Applicant: See pages 15-16 of the applicant’s narrative. Staff: Section 342 implements RNRP Policy 16. Per CDC Section 342-1, the EFC district is

intended to provide for renewable forest resource production, retention of water resources, recreation, agriculture and other related or compatible uses set forth in Goal 4. The purpose is to encourage forestry as the dominant use on forest lands, and efficient forest conservation and management to minimize potential for fire damage, pollution, soil erosion and conflicts caused by development. While the subject site could qualify as either farm or forest land pursuant to Goal 3 or Goal 4, staff believes that findings under Policies 1, 14, 15 and 16 establish that the subject site should be designated EFU to preserve its longstanding farm use as required by Policy 15.

Section 421 – Flood Plain and Drainage Hazard Area Development Section 422 – Significant Natural Resources Applicant: See pages 17-18 of the applicant’s narrative.

Staff: Section 421 regulates development within flood prone areas. The subject site does

not include any FEMA-recognized floodplains but two Drainage Hazard Areas (DHAs) are identified onsite (lands outside the mapped base flood area with a four percent chance of inundation in any given year). These are associated with the creeks in the east and west ends of the property.

Section 422 regulates development within Significant Natural Resource areas, such as the onsite Wildlife Habitat mapped on the entire site by the RNRP and two Water Areas and Wetlands and Fish and Wildlife Habitat corridors that correlate with the onsite creeks. Development standards of Sections 421 and 422 are not directly applied through a plan amendment request since it is not a development proposal, but compliance will be assured at the development review stage if the applicant seeks subsequent approval for a farm-assistance dwelling as intended. (See related findings under RNRP Policies 6 and 10).



C. Housing 1. Washington County RNRP: Policy 26 – Housing 2. Washington County CDC: Section 340 – Exclusive Farm Use (EFU)

Housing – Summary of Findings Staff finds this application consistent with rural Housing provisions of Policy 26 and the CDC. 1. Washington County RNRP: Policy 26 – Housing 2. Washington County CDC:

340-1 – Intent and Purpose 340-4.1 – Permitted Uses which are exempt from Section 340-4.3:

C. Dwelling Unit(s) occupied by a relative of the farm operator or farm operator's spouse who assists or will assist with the management of the commercial farm operation…

Applicant: See pages 12 and 16-17 of the applicant’s narrative. Staff: Policy 26 states:

It is the policy of Washington County to allow housing in conjunction with Natural Resource uses and to provide housing choices in rural areas. …The county will… c. Allow dwellings in accordance with specified criteria in the Exclusive Farm

and Forest Land Use Districts… …The primary purpose of housing outside the Urban Growth Boundary is to provide shelter for the people who are involved in farm, forest and other activities related to the natural resources…

CDC Section 340-4.1. C., which allows a dwelling for a family member who will help with farm management, implements the above Policy provisions. Approval of this Plan Amendment request will allow for future consideration of such housing in accordance with Policy 26 – housing that cannot be accommodated while the site remains EFC. (See Land Use findings for Section 340 under Section IV. B. 3).

D. Transportation 1. Statewide Planning Goal 12 – Transportation 2. State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) – OAR 660-012-0060 3. Washington County RNRP Policy 1 – The Planning Process 4. Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP)

Goals 1 – Safety Goal 2 – Economic Viability Goal 3 – Livability Goal 4 – Natural Environment Goal 5 – Mobility Goal 6 – Accessibility Goal 9 – Coordination Goal 10 – Funding



Transportation – Summary of Findings Staff finds that the application complies with transportation-related requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 12 and the state TPR, and the Washington County RNRP and TSP. See findings, incorporated by reference, within the Transportation Report (Attachment B). Staff notes that, for context, Attachment B addresses some TSP Goals besides those the applicant was asked to address (4, 5, 9 and 10).

E. Other Public Facilities and Services 1. Statewide Planning Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services 2. Washington County RNRP: Policy 22 – Public Facilities and Services

Other Public Facilities and Services – Summary of Findings Staff finds that requirements regarding public facilities and services have been addressed in compliance with provisions of Statewide Planning Goal 11 and RNRP Policy 22. See additional findings below. 1. Statewide Planning Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services 2. Washington County RNRP: Policy 22 – Public Facilities and Services (Schools)

Applicant: See pages 11 and 19 of the applicant’s narrative and submitted Request for Statement of Service Availability forms.

Staff: Goal 11 calls for development of public facilities and services as a framework for

urban and rural development. For rural areas, it states that these should be provided at levels appropriate for rural use only and should not support urban uses.

RNRP Policy 22 addresses Goal 11, require County coordination with service providers to ensure adequacy of schools, fire and police protection, and onsite services such water and septic. The applicant has provided completed forms from Banks Fire District, Washington County Sheriff, and Vernonia School District, as required, indicating that service will be adequate following the plan amendment. The same will be required with any subsequent review for approval of a farm-assistance dwelling, when availability of additional services must also be confirmed.

V. OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Staff: Evidence and analysis provided by the applicant, and findings within this report and its

attachments, demonstrate that the proposed plan amendment conforms to applicable provisions of Statewide Planning Goals, the Transportation Planning Rule, and Washington County’s Rural Natural Resource and Transportation System Plans.

VI. RECOMMENDATION

Staff: Based on the findings in the submitted plan amendment application, this report and its

attachments, staff recommends that the proposed plan amendment be APPROVED. S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\Plan Amendments\CASE FILES\2019\Schmidlin 19_058_PA EFC to EFU\PC\04_17_19_SR.docx

Attachment A

TABLE A: REGULATIONS AS ORGANIZED BY TOPIC (WITHIN SECTION IV OF THIS REPORT – FINDINGS)

A. Citizen Involvement

1. Statewide Planning Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement 2. Washington County Rural Natural Resource Plan (RNRP):

Policy 2 – Citizen Involvement 3. Washington County Community Development Code (CDC):

Section 203 – Processing Type I, II, and III Development Applications Section 204 – Notice

B. Land Use Planning

1. Statewide Planning Goals Goal 2 – Land Use Planning Goal 3 – Agricultural Lands Goal 4 – Forest Lands Goal 5 – …Natural Resources

2. Washington County RNRP: Policy 1 – The Planning Process Policy 6 – Water Resources Policy 10 – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Policy 14 – Plan Designations Policy 15 – Exclusive Farm Lands Policy 16 – Exclusive Forest Lands

3. Washington County Community Development Code (CDC): Section 340 – Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Section 342 – Exclusive Forest Conservation (EFC) Section 421 – Flood Plain and Drainage Hazard Area Development Section 422 – Significant Natural Resources

C. Housing

1. Washington County RNRP: Policy 26 – Housing

3. Washington County Community Development Code (CDC): Section 340 – Exclusive Farm Use (EFU)

D. Transportation

1. State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) – OAR 660-012-0060 2. Statewide Planning Goal 12 – Transportation 3. Washington County RNRP Policy 1 – The Planning Process 4. Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP)

Goals 1 – Safety Goal 2 – Economic Viability Goal 3 – Livability Goal 4 – Natural Environment Goal 5 – Mobility Goal 6 – Accessibility Goal 9 – Coordination Goal 10 – Funding

E. Other Public Facilities and Services

1. Statewide Planning Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services 2. Washington County RNRP:

Policy 22 – Public Facilities and Services

ATTACHMENT B

Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services • Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072

phone: 503-846-3519 • fax: 503-846-4412 www.co.washington.or.us/lut • [email protected]

March 5, 2019

TRANSPORTATION REPORT CASEFILE NO. 19-058-PA

Applicant: Betty Schmidlin

Location: Highway 47 approx. 6 miles north of NW Johnson Rd

Tax Map/Lot: 3N400B Tax Lots 1500 and 1700

Site Size: 153.31 acres

Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the applicable transportation planning policies and rules and submits the following findings and recommendations. FINDINGS

A. General: 1. The proposed quasi-judicial plan amendment would change the plan designation on a 153.31

acre site from Exclusive Forest Conservation (EFC) to Exclusive Farm Use (EFU).

2. The current access to the subject property is via Highway 47/Nehalem Hwy. Highway 47 is a state highway and planned to remain a two-lane roadway.

3. The following standards are applicable to this request and are addressed in this staff report:

a. OAR 660, Division 12, Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (Implements Statewide planning Goal 12 - Transportation):

• Section 060 - Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments b. Washington County Rural Natural Resource Plan (RNRP):

• Policy 1 c. Washington County Transportation System Plan Goals:

• Goal 1 – Safety • Goal 2 – Economic Vitality • Goal 3 – Livability • Goal 4 – Natural Environment • Goal 5 – Mobility • Goal 6 – Accessibility • Goal 9 – Coordination • Goal 10 - Funding

B. Oregon Transportation Planning Rule 1. The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0060, implements Statewide planning

Goal 12 - Transportation. It requires an analysis of the impact of a proposed plan amendment on the planned transportation system to determine whether the proposal will “significantly affect” the planned transportation system in the area.

http://www.co.washington.or.us/

Casefile 19-058-PA Attachment B – Plan Amendment Transportation Report Page 2 of 5

2. Pursuant to the OAR, a proposed plan amendment would significantly affect Nehalem Hwy and/or the surrounding transportation network if it did any of the following as measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP (year-2040):

• Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;

• Change the standards implementing a functional classification system;

• Allow types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;

• Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the Transportation System Plan or comprehensive plan; or

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

3. Considering the criteria above, in order to determine if a plan amendment will result in a significant impact on transportation facilities, the County generally requires a comparative analysis of a reasonable worst-case development of a site under current and proposed land use designations. A “reasonable worst case” development would be one with the greatest potential trip generation based on a reasonable build-out of the site over the planning horizon of the adopted TSP.

4. The county evaluates roadway performance based on the volume to capacity ratios (V/C), measured at signalized intersections. The Washington County TSP sets forth the applicable performance criteria for plan amendment requests. For this plan amendment, there are no signal controlled intersections in the vicinity of the site.

5. The applicant provided an estimate of peak hour and daily traffic under a reasonable worst-case scenario as compared to existing zoning. The analysis is based on the addition of a single-family dwelling unit (ITE Code 210 – Single Family Detached). A total of 10 additional daily trips are anticipated as a result of dwelling approval (which is contingent on plan amendment approval but subject to a separate approval process).

6. No changes in functional classification are proposed or required in order to accommodate the proposed plan amendment. Furthermore, the plan amendment will not affect the standards implementing the functional classification system as set forth in Objective 5.3 of the County’s TSP nor will it significantly affect the capacity of the surrounding transportation network. Based upon these facts, staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level-of-service for affected transportation facilities, consistent with Section 060 of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule.

7. Considering the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendment will not significantly affect the capacity or levels of travel on the nearby transportation network as defined in the Transportation Planning Rule.


C. Washington County Rural Natural Resource Plan (RNRP) This plan amendment request is subject to Policy 1 (The Planning Process), Implementing Strategy o. 3. of the RNRP, which states:

The county will: o. Require that all plan amendments…

3. Be in conformance with applicable policies, strategies, and systems maps of the Transportation Plan Element.

STAFF: As it pertains to transportation, this policy requires the County to analyze the existing transportation system as well as the planned system. With the proposed plan amendment, the future performance of nearby transportation facilities will comply with the adopted performance thresholds of the TSP, based on the County Traffic Engineer’s review. Further, the Oregon Department of Transportation indicates no concern from a traffic-generation standpoint with respect to the existing access on Nehalem Highway South (an ODOT facility), stating that additional trip generation is negligible. Based on this, the plan amendment will be consistent with Policy 1 with regard to transportation.

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

Goal 1: Safety Provide a safe transportation system for all users. Objective 1.1

Provide a transportation system that is structurally and operationally safe for all users and all modes. Objective 1.3 Review all development proposals, including those within incorporated areas, to continue the safe operation of county roads.

STAFF: Significant impacts on capacity or roadway safety are not anticipated under the proposed plan designation. Any traffic safety impacts associated with potential future development on the subject property will be subject to the traffic safety regulations set forth in the Community Development Code and Resolution and Order 86-95 which implement Objective 1.3. As explained above in this report, the proposed plan amendment is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the capacity or level of service on any of the transportation facilities in the impact area. The proposal therefore does not conflict with Goal 1.


Goal 2: Economic Vitality Provide a reliable transportation system that enhances the economic health of Washington County. Objective 2.4

Encourage rural economic vitality in Washington County.

STAFF: Transportation’s role is to provide a safe, reliable network of roads for everyone who lives, works, visits or passes through the rural area. The proposal therefore does not conflict with Goal 2.

Goal 3: Livability Preserve and enhance Washington County’s quality of life for all residents, workers and visitors. Objective 3.1

Strive to maintain and enhance the livability of existing and future communities and neighborhoods. Objective 3.4 Identify, limit and/or mitigate adverse impacts of transportation on rural, agricultural and resource areas in Washington County.

STAFF: Any future development on the subject property will be subject to the regulations set forth in the Community Development Code. The proposal therefore does not conflict with Goal 3.

Goal 4: Natural Environment Create and maintain a transportation system that first avoids, then minimizes, then mitigates impacts to the natural environment. Objective 4.2

Reduce and/or mitigate negative impacts of the transportation system on the natural environment.

STAFF: An existing roadway provides access to the site. No changes to this roadway or any other roadways in the vicinity are anticipated as a result of this amendment. Therefore, the amendment does not conflict with Goal 4.

Goal 5: Mobility Promote the efficient and cost–effective movement of people, goods and services by all modes. Objective 5.3

Utilize the Interim Washington County Motor Vehicle Performance Measures to manage congestion.

STAFF: The proposed plan amendment will not result in significant degradation of the planned motor vehicle system nor will it affect the Functional Classification of any nearby street or highway, nor result in land uses that are inconsistent with those identified in the TSP. Therefore,


the amendment will be consistent with the performance measures set forth in the strategies for implementation of Goal 5.

Goal 6: Accessibility Provide safe and efficient access to destinations within Washington County. Objective 6.1

Provide an accessible, multi-modal transportation system that meets the needs of the community.

STAFF: The current access to the subject property is via Highway 47/Nehalem Hwy. The applicant and staff have worked with the Oregon Department of Transportation to ensure that the access point on Highway 47 provides safe and convenient access to the subject parcels. Any future development on the subject property will be subject to the regulations set forth in the Community Development Code. The proposal therefore does not conflict with Goal 6.

Goal 9: Coordination Implement the Transportation System Plan by working with the public, community groups, transit providers, cities and other government agencies.

STAFF: The site is already well served with a good transportation via Highway 47. The applicant and staff have worked with the Oregon Department of Transportation to ensure that the access point on Highway 47 provides safe and convenient access to the subject parcels. The proposal therefore does not conflict with Goal 9.

Goal 10: Funding Seek adequate and reliable funding for transportation. Objective 10.2

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

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings in this report, staff concludes that this plan amendment proposal will NOT “significantly affect” a transportation facility as defined in OAR 660, Division 12 and is consistent with the Washington County Rural Natural Resource Plan and Washington County Transportation System Plan.

Exhibit C 3

Department of Land Use & Transportation · Planning and Development Services · Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue Suite 350, MS 14 · Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072

phone: 503-846-3519 · fax: 503-846-4412 · www.co.washington.or.us

Memorandum Date: April 17, 2019 To: Planning Commissioners From: Anne Kelly, Senior Planner Community Planning RE: Response to Comments from Commissioner Lockwood on Schmidlin Rural Plan Amendment

19‐058‐PA

Following is staff’s response to Commissioner Lockwood’s emailed communication from April 15, 2019.

Commissioner Lockwood asked for confirmation that the following statement cited from a Land Use Board of Appeals Final Opinion and Order remains pertinent (LUBA No. 90‐081). Specifically she wanted to confirm that future uses possible under an EFU designation do not have bearing on whether to approve an application for a plan amendment from EFC to EFU.

LUBA statement:

" . . . Policy 1, strategy p(1), quoted supra, does set out specific county requirements for approving a Rural Plan map amendment from EFC to EFU. We agree with respondents that this strategy requires the county to determine whether EFU or EFC is the more appropriate district for the subject parcel, based on consideration of the characteristics of the parcel and surrounding area, not on a determination of the impacts of the uses potentially allowed under an EFU district."

Staff Response: The above finding refutes a petitioner’s assertion that a change from EFC to EFU requires the County to determine consequences of the most intensive possible conditional uses allowed under the EFU designation, including a golf course. As indicated above, LUBA found that such was not required, and rather that specific County requirements of Rural Natural Resource Plan Policy 1 p. (1) apply. (This policy touches on impacts only in terms of potential for offsite uses to present conflicts to feasibility of crops – not potential for allowable EFU uses to create impacts).

Counsel has found no evidence of appeals that challenged or altered this LUBA finding, thus it appears to remain pertinent. Impacts of future uses possible under an EFU designation therefore do not appear to have bearing on determination of the appropriate designation.

While the staff report for current casefile 19‐058‐PA provides context as to the applicant’s future intent for the site if designated EFU, findings on page 15 of the report indicate that the subject site qualifies as EFU independent of future use considerations.

S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\Plan Amendments\CASE FILES\2019\Schmidlin 19_058_PA EFC to EFU\Board\R&O\19‐058_PA_LockwoodResponse_Ex_C3.docx

Exhibit D

SUMMARY OF DECISION – CASEFILE 19‐058‐PA At its meeting on May 21, 2019, the Washington County Board of Commissioners (Board) met to hear a request for a plan amendment to change the plan map designation from Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC) to Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). The subject property totals approximately 153.31 acres and is specifically identified as map/lots 3N400B00 1500 and 1700.

Following the public hearing, the Board approved the requested Plan Amendment. The Board adopted the approval findings contained in the Board staff report for May 21, 2019 (“Exhibit B”) and the Planning Commission staff report for April 17, 2019 (“Exhibit C”). Specifically, the Board found that the proposed plan amendment met the criteria included in applicable Oregon Statewide Planning Goals, the State Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660‐012‐0060), Washington County Rural Natural Resource Plan Policies and Implementing Strategies, Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) Goals, and the Washington County Community Development Code (CDC).

S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\Plan Amendments\CASE FILES\2019\Schmidlin 19_058_PA EFC to EFU\Board\R&O\19‐058‐PA_DecisionSummary_Ex_D.docx

Date post:	27-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	6 times
Download:	0 times

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT

Documents