MINUTES

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SEPTEMBER 19, 2017

CONVENED: 10:14 a.m. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Chair Andy Duyck Vice Chair Greg Malinowski Commissioner Dick Schouten Commissioner Roy Rogers Commissioner Bob Terry STAFF: Robert Davis, County Administrator Alan Rappleyea, County Counsel Elmer Dickens, Sr. Assistant County Counsel Andrew Singelakis, Director, LUT Andy Back, Planning & Development Services Mgr., LUT Theresa Cherniak, Principal Planner, LUT Sambo Kirkman, Associate Planner, LUT Dyami Valentine, Senior Planner, LUT Steve Sanford, Human Resources Manager, SS Bill Gaffi, General Manager, CWS Chuck Schable, Audiovisual Technician Barbara Hejtmanek, Recording Secretary PRESS: None. 1. ORAL COMMUNICATION (2-MINUTE OPPORTUNITY) Gary Burns began speaking about vehicle storage on public roads. It became clear to the Chair that Mr. Burns was actually testifying about public hearing item 6.b. (ESPD Ordinance No. 2) and so he asked him to provide his testimony when this item came up for consideration later in the meeting. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Chair Duyck announced the following modifications to the Consent Agenda:

• Item 2.b. is removed from today’s agenda, at the request of staff.

• There is award of bid on item 2.d. to Kerr Contractors Oregon, Inc. in the amount of $277,199.00

It was moved to adopt the Consent Agenda, as modified. Motion – Rogers 2nd – Terry Vote – 5-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 5, 2017 CLEAN WATER SERVICES 2.a. CWS MO 17-72 Approve Joint Funding Agreement for Cooperative Study with the U.S. Geological Survey for Continued Study of Tualatin River Water Quality (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 2.b. CWS MO 17-73 Approve Third Modification to First Amendment to Master Contract for Architectural Services with A2 Architects, LLC for the Rock Creek Administration Building Improvements Project No. 6639 (Removed From Agenda) 2.c. CWS MO 17-74 Approve Seventeenth Amendment to Master Contract for Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Services with CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc. for the Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Dewatering Centrifuge Project No. 6893 (Approved Under Consent Agenda) LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 2.d. MO 17-264 Approve Bid Award and Execute Contract for the Bald Peak Road and Campbell Road Intersection Improvements Project (CPO 10) (Approved Under Consent Agenda) COUNTY COUNSEL 2.e. MO 17-265 Authorize Contract for Outside Attorney Services (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 2.f. MO 17-266 Approve the 2017-2023 Public Health Division Strategic Plan (Approved Under Consent Agenda) HOUSING SERVICES 2.g. MO 17-267 Authorize Submittal of Federal FY 2017 McKinney-Vento Continuum of Care (CoC) Program Homeless Assistance Grant Application (All CPOs) (Approved Under Consent Agenda) OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2.h. MO 17-268 Award Community Development Block Grant Project Agreement for City of Banks (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 2.i. MO 17-269 Award Community Development Block Grant Project Agreement for City of Cornelius (Approved Under Consent Agenda) SUPPORT SERVICES 2.j. MO 17-270 Authorize Washington County Parks to Accept an Oregon State Marine Board Grant Award in the Amount of $290,595 for Paving Improvements at Scoggins Valley Park (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 3. PRESENTATION – LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 3.a. MO 17-260 Acknowledge Recognition of Hank McDonald as Building Official of the Year for 2017 by Oregon Building Official Association (OBOA) Andrew Singelakis informed the Board that Hank McDonald will be retiring at the end of this year. He said that Mr. McDonald’s problem-solving abilities will be missed and he was glad that he is enjoying statewide recognition. Eric Schmidt, City of Gresham, thanked Andrew Singelakis and Andy Back for continued support of Hank McDonald’s involvement and contributions to the construction industry. Mr.

Schmidt identified himself as the Community Development Director and Building Official for the City of Gresham. Today, he spoke on behalf of the Oregon Building Officials Association (OBOA), where he is the immediate past president of that organization. Mr. Schmidt was accompanied by the current OBOA president, Matt Rozelle, who is the Deputy Building Official for the City of Happy Valley. Mr. Schmidt stated that the OBOA was founded in 1974 and represents more than 1,000 Building Officials and personnel throughout the state. He said that its members include a wide range of Building Officials, Plans Examiners, Building Inspectors and other technical staff in large metropolitan cities and counties, as well as small rural jurisdictions. Mr. Schmidt stated that the Building Official of the Year award is presented annually in special recognition of an individual’s significant contributions to their jurisdiction and to the profession over many years. He was honored to present this award to Hank McDonald in late July at this year’s annual business meeting. Mr. Schmidt has heard from other members that Mr. McDonald is never too busy to help out with a code question, he has great customer service skills and he is willing to share his expertise with the newer players in the industry. He cited examples from different parts of the state. Mr. Schmidt has known Hank McDonald for nearly 20 years and said that there is strong agreement among the industry that Mr. McDonald has served with passion, commitment and subject matter expertise over his career. He reported that Mr. McDonald is well respected by his colleagues, including partners at the State Building Codes Commission. Mr. Schmidt said that over the years at OBOA, Mr. McDonald has served on many committees, on the Board of Directors (including as president) and has always been present when called upon to lend a hand or give of his expertise and experience. He considered Mr. McDonald a colleague, a mentor and a friend. Mr. Schmidt presented the award to Hank McDonald amidst audience applause. Hank McDonald was proud and honored to receive this award and to serve in Washington County. He said that ours is the second largest building department in the State of Oregon, with a dedicated and experienced staff. Mr. McDonald stated that their work serves as a role model for many jurisdictions. Chair Duyck thanked Hank McDonald for his service. The Board came down from the dais to participate in a joint photo opportunity with Mr. Schmidt and Mr. McDonald to memorialize this occasion. 4. PRESENTATION – SUPPORT SERVICES 4.a. MO 17-261 Acknowledge Receipt of 2017 Healthiest Employer Award from Portland Business Journal Steve Sanford stated that the County accepted a recent award from the Portland Business Journal as one of the healthiest employers in Oregon. He felt privileged to work with the leadership and support of the program from the Board and the County Administrative Office because without

that, the program would not be what it is today. Mr. Sanford utilized a PowerPoint presentation, which may be found in the Meeting File. He told the Board that this is the third consecutive year that Washington County has been recognized. Mr. Sanford said that this recognizes the County’s commitment to the health and wellness of not only employees but also family members. In terms of the recognition criteria, Mr. Sanford stated that organizations are evaluated on the following categories:

• Culture and leadership commitment • Foundational components • Strategic planning • Communications and marketing • Programming and intervention • Reporting and analysis

Mr. Sanford listed the organizations recognized in the large category (1500 employees or more):

• Samaritan Health Services • JE Dunn Construction • Meredith Corporation • Cambia Health Solutions • Kaiser Permanente • Providence Health Services • HP • Adventist Health/Portland • Fred Meyer Stores • St. Charles Health System • Pacific Seafood • Peace Health • Lithia Motors

Mr. Sanford told the Board that we were the only public sector agency that was recognized in the large organization category. He said that other public sector agencies that were recognized were the City of Eugene, Lane County and Marion County. Mr. Sanford stated that our health and wellness mission is to support a culture of wellness by enhancing opportunities for employees to develop healthier lifestyles. He said that from the inception, the program has been about providing community resources, education and programs that encourage employees to make healthy lifestyle choices. Mr. Sanford indicated that employees can elect to participate or not. He said that every year, we have about an 80% participation in our healthy choice activities, which shows the level at which employees embrace the program. Mr. Sanford provided examples of the activities offered each year. He said that the overall objective is to have events that continue to engage employees in healthy activities. Mr. Sanford called attention to the employees who comprise the Wellness Committee and asked those who

were in the audience to stand for recognition. He especially thanked Julee Howard from Human Resources for leading and coordinating the Wellness Program from its inception. Audience applause was given to Julee Howard and the Wellness Committee. Mr. Sanford showed the Board the plaque received from the Portland Business Journal for the third consecutive year. The Board joined Mr. Sanford and the Wellness Committee for a photographic opportunity. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS – LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 5.a. MO 17-262 Consider Proposed Ordinance No. 826 – An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code Relating to Telecommunication Facilities Standards (All CPOs) There was a motion to read proposed Ordinance No. 826 by title only. Motion – Rogers 2nd – Schouten Vote – 5-0 Alan Rappleyea read the proposed ordinance by title. Sambo Kirkman utilized a PowerPoint presentation, which may be found in the Meeting File. She said that Ordinance 826 looks at changes to the Community Development Code specifically related to telecommunication facilities. Ms. Kirkman stated that telecommunication facilities are best described as equipment associated with the transmitting and/or receiving signals that include cell towers, wireless facilities, broadcast/communication facilities and radio towers. She explained that the proposed changes are to comply with the federal regulations but said that the County has also received several requests from the industry and staff to streamline these regulations since they are unclear and outdated. Ms. Kirkman said that the regulations for telecommunication facilities are located throughout the Community Development Code (CDC). She stated that the key sections that regulate these facilities are found in:

• Section 106 containing the terms/definitions that apply to telecommunication facilities; • Article 3 for each land use district identifies types of telecommunication facilities

permitted and the type of process review required; • Special Use Section 430-109 which contains most of the standards and requirements,

including their size, design and site characteristics. Ms. Kirkman stated that there are four types of telecommunication facilities currently regulated by the CDC:

• Facility 1: Co-location. This is the addition of antennas and/or other supporting equipment to an existing telecommunication facility or structure.

• Facilities 2 through 4 address the installation of new towers ranging from stealth to non-stealth design.

Ms. Kirkman showed photographs of examples of co-location and new towers. Ms. Kirkman related that in 2004, Congress passed the Spectrum Act, which limits what local agencies can review for co-location, removal and replacement requests for existing facilities. She said that Ordinance 826 includes changes that comply with the Spectrum Act. Ms. Kirkman stated that with the needed changes to comply with federal statutes, staff expanded the update to address issues raised by the industry and staff about the current code. She shared that some of the comments included:

• Special Use Section 430-109 is unclear and not well organized. • Submittal requirements are excessive. Since the Spectrum Act requires less supporting

documentation when reviewing co-location and expansions of existing facilities, reductions and submittal requirements should be considered for other telecommunication facilities.

Ms. Kirkman stated that staff drafted the updated regulations provided in Exhibit 1 of the filed ordinance. She said that the proposed changes can be placed into three categories:

• Restructuring of the code • Updates to the language in the regulations • New code sections

Ms. Kirkman told the Board that a key change proposed was reorganizing the regulations. She pointed out that Exhibit 1 of the filed ordinance is quite large but added that the bulk of the proposed changes are moving sections around in the CDC. Ms. Kirkman said that since most of the language is existing, but was relocated, staff opted to show Section 430-109 as new language to limit confusion. She stated that the sections in 430-109 were rearranged for clarity and efficiency and included revisions to the title of this section, as well as subsection titles. Ms. Kirkman said that a table cross referencing the current and proposed sections in 430-109 is provided in Attachment B of the September 12, 2017 Board staff report. She stated that as part of the restructuring, regulations such as temporary use exemptions were moved from Section 430-109 to the temporary use section in 430-135. Ms. Kirkman stated that updates to the language relating to telecommunication facilities include:

• Adding exemptions for certain co-locations in Section 430-109. This is shown on page 35 in Exhibit 1 of the filed ordinance. This exemption reflects the streamlined review for certain co-locations required by the Spectrum Act.

• The uses related to telecommunication facilities are also proposed to be updated in all land use districts in Article 3 of the CDC to reflect the proposed changes in Section 430-109.

• The submittal requirements have been consolidated into one location and remove requirements that are not considered pertinent to the land use review.

• Thresholds for process types were updated to ensure the review type was consistent with the level of impact associated with the change.

Ms. Kirkman stated that this ordinance proposes two new sections to Special Use Section 430-109:

• Intent and Purpose • New telecommunication facilities in the public right-of-way

Ms. Kirkman displayed a chart relative to the Intent and Purpose section. She said that this provides context for the regulations and identifies the types of facilities to be regulated. Ms. Kirkman stated that this ordinance will remove references to Facilities 1 through 4 that are confusing when referencing Procedure Types 1 through 3. She said that Facility Type 1 is now co-location, Facility Type 2 is now towers with stealth design, and Facilities 3 and 4 were combined and are now tower without stealth design since the Procedure Type and Design Standards were the same. Ms. Kirkman stated that ‘new facilities in the right-of-way’ was added as an additional type to be reviewed. Ms. Kirkman indicated that a key comment by stakeholders was the need to allow more antennas in the right-of-way. She identified this as a key issue through this ordinance process. Ms. Kirkman said that more information on this issue will be addressed later in this presentation; however, the next slides will provide a summary of the proposed section. Ms. Kirkman stated that currently, antennas are only allowed on existing utility poles as an exclusion from the development review by Section 201-2 of the CDC. She said that new towers are not part of this exclusion and would need to comply with the regulations in Special Use Section 430-109. Ms. Kirkman explained that these towers could not be approved since they cannot meet setback standards in this section. She informed the Board that staff proposed a new section identifying the procedure type and standards that would allow these new towers in the right-of-way. Ms. Kirkman stated that proposed Section 430-109.5 permits towers in the right-of-way but with certain limitations based on the street classification. She displayed a table showing that for neighborhood routes, local streets and certain arterials/collectors, these towers would be limited to a height of 30 feet. Ms. Kirkman said that on other arterials and collectors, the height allowed would be dependent on the level of review. She stated that other standards, such as size and location of the supporting facilities, are detailed in this proposed section. Ms. Kirkman said that a copy of the proposed ordinance was sent to the stakeholders for their review. She stated that staff received comments from three stakeholders: Verizon, AT&T and Washington County Consolidated Communication Agency (WCCCA). Ms. Kirkman listed some of the feedback:

• Allow more and larger equipment cabinets on poles.

• Use the terminology and definitions provided by the FCC. • Remove the prohibition of antennas on County assets. • Allow taller towers in the right-of-way. • Exclude facilities used for Essential Public Communications from permit requirements. • Establish the height of the facility at the top of the tower and not the top of an antenna.

Ms. Kirkman noted that Attachment A to the Board staff report includes a summary of these comments as well as staff’s response. Ms. Kirkman said that at the August 16, 2017 hearing, the Planning Commission requested staff to provide additional information on this ordinance, including the following:

• How noise and lighting requirements are addressed for telecommunication facilities. • How roadway improvements impact facilities in the right-of-way. • Why the size of pole-mounted cabinets should be increased. • Ensure language in the CDC is consistent with the Spectrum Act. • Review the proposed terms and definitions so they are more consistent with the Spectrum

Act and industry usage. Ms. Kirkman reviewed that at the September 6, 2017 hearing, staff addressed the questions raised by the Planning Commission. She said that from the questions raised and in collaboration with the industry experts, staff recommended some changes to the ordinance, including:

• Increase the cabinet size in number. • Modify the definitions and exemptions sections to be more consistent with the Spectrum

Act. • Modify antenna design standards to be consistent with other sections.

Ms. Kirkman stated that the primary issue raised by the Planning Commission were the potential impacts on future development if these approved facilities required relocation due to roadway improvements—specifically, impacts from relocation costs and timing of relocation on a development. She said that these issues related more to work within the right-of-way than the land use process. Ms. Kirkman stated that staff from Engineering and Construction Services and Operations and Maintenance are here today to answer any questions related to impacts to County right-of-way. Ms. Kirkman related that the Planning Commission determined that more time is needed to address the impacts to future development or there may be more conflicts between utilities and the public improvements required with a development as a result of this ordinance. She said that the Planning Commission voted to request the Board to defer action on the ordinance to the spring of 2018. (This was discussed in the September 12, 2017 staff report.) Ms. Kirkman said that since last week, staff has provided an addendum to the Board staff report providing additional information on this right-of-way issue and options the Board may want to consider when determining future actions for Ordinance 826. She listed the options:

1. Accept the Planning Commission recommendation and defer action on Ordinance No. 826 until spring 2018.

2. Order engrossment to reflect the changes described in the September 12 staff report and to remove Section 430-109.5 (New Telecommunications Facilities in the Right-of-Way).

3. Order engrossment to reflect the changes described in the September 12 staff report and keep Section 430-109.5.

Ms. Kirkman asked the Board to provide staff with direction following the public hearing. She recommended that the Board consider Option 2 to allow more time to address the right-of-way issue but to allow other elements of the ordinance to proceed. Ms. Kirkman also recommended that the Board continue the hearing for the engrossed ordinance to October 10 and 24, 2017 and to direct staff to provide mailed notice of the changes. Ms. Kirkman acknowledged receipt of two additional letters this morning regarding this ordinance. Regarding the Planning Commission recommendation, Chair Duyck wanted to know if they provided staff with specifics of what they want to work on next year. Ms. Kirkman replied that the main issue they wanted staff to address was the issue of right-of-way and how we were to address new antenna facilities in that right-of-way. She said there was some discussion on issues of signal interference; staff has addressed this issue in the staff report. Chair Duyck asked if staff would still have the flexibility to address any of those issues outside of the ordinance if the Board chose Option 2. Theresa Cherniak responded that the main issue was facilities within the right-of-way. She said that if this section was pulled out, that would give staff time to work with other cities who are looking at this issue right now, as well as do some additional research and talk with the Planning Commission again to ask for more specific direction. Ms. Cherniak wanted to discover what part of what they want changed is land use versus right-of-way permit-related. She said that Option 2 would give staff the ability to work on that issue. Commissioner Schouten asked staff to summarize the right-of-way issues and the impact of various telecommunication facilities being built in right-of-ways, with respect to subsequent development and cost sharing. Ms. Kirkman stated that the Planning Commission issue is that this new code section would allow an antenna facility in the right-of-way. She said that in the event that this facility is put in there and future development was to come in and roadway improvements were required that conflicted with the location of that facility, then who bears the cost of the relocation of that facility and what is the timing of that relocation. Commissioner Schouten’s understanding was that those costs will be principally, if not exclusively, borne by future development.

Alan Rappleyea said that this has been an issue that went up to the Court of Appeals fairly recently. He stated that the County participated as an amicus on that case. Mr. Rappleyea said that the question of when the County moves/expands the right-of-way, it is clear that the utility has to move its facilities. He stated that the more difficult question is who bears the cost when the County conditions an approval. Commissioner Schouten asked if it is the case that those costs would be borne by developers as opposed to the utility. Mr. Rappleyea replied that this is what the Court of Appeals case found but that was contingent upon the exact language of the conditions of approval and our code language. He thought that this is why they want more time to look at that issue and to craft clear language. Mr. Rappleyea stated that the County’s position was when the County conditions a developer to do a road improvement, they are acting as our agent and so we think the utility should bear those costs. Commissioner Malinowski talked about a brand new pole being an antenna in the right-of-way that is placed on County property (a public asset). He asked if putting the antennas on top of an existing PGE pole is considered private on private property because it is on a PGE pole. Ms. Kirkman responded that a new tower in the public right-of-way is not a County asset. She said that a County asset would be an actual pole or signal which the County actually owns. Ms. Kirkman stated that the issue of right-of-way has to do more with what the State allows for utilities within the right-of-way. She explained that our code is currently set up such that for existing PGE poles and other utilities, an antenna can be placed on there without having to go through land use review. (It is an exclusion under Section 201-2.) Ms. Kirkman said that the discussion is what if a carrier would like to have a new antenna or a tower placed in the right-of-way because there is not a utility pole available. She explained that since our code currently does not discuss antennas within the right-of-way (it is not considered a County asset), we would base it on how we currently address new towers in general in Section 401-3, which discusses the need for setbacks from certain property lines. Ms. Kirkman said that with the tower being in the public right-of-way, it would not meet the setback requirements, which is why we would not be able to put a new tower in. Commissioner Malinowski said that the last time he looked into this, a tower was 50 feet tall and there was an exclusion from development within that 50 feet fall zone. He observed that at taller heights, pretty soon you are talking quite a bit of real estate. Commissioner Malinowski said that if it is in the right-of-way, there are all kinds of things in the fall zone. He asked if we are doing away with the fall zone. Ms. Kirkman replied that we are not—on private lands. Commissioner Malinowski assumed that it is PGE’s problem to move a pole if it gets in the way. Ms. Kirkman said that the proposed ordinance does not change how we currently address existing antennas in the right-of-way. She stated that that has always been an excluded item. Ms. Kirkman explained that PGE utility poles are not addressed in the CDC. She said that when

PGE is interested in placing a pole in the right-of-way, that is deferred back to the Operations and Maintenance Division and they would address it through a right-of-way permit. Commissioner Terry asked if staff feels that stakeholders are satisfied with the proposed ordinance. Ms. Kirkman indicated that some stakeholders are here to testify and so she would let them answer that question. Her work with the stakeholders has led her to believe that staff has made a good attempt to meet all of their issues. Commissioner Terry noticed that the stakeholders use the term ‘furniture’ whereas we use the word ‘fixtures’. He did not want to create confusion down the line. Mr. Rappleyea was looking at comments from the Homebuilders Association, who are concerned with negative impacts on future development to include unknown nature, cost and timing of the legal responsibility. He thought that the wireless industry would like access to our facilities. The public hearing was opened. Meridee Pabst, 2728 N. L Street, Washougal, Washington, spoke on behalf of Verizon Wireless. She generally supported the changes recommended by staff today. Ms. Pabst intended to speak further on one policy issue but first wanted to thank staff, particularly Ms. Kirkman, for soliciting input from stakeholders early in the process. She appreciated the County’s openness for working collaboratively to address the issues. Ms. Pabst expressed a preference for either Option 2 or 3, both of which achieve the majority purpose of the code. She stated that there are a lot of loose ends and other clarifications that would really make a difference for staff and the community if this ordinance could at least be adopted at 90%. With regard to new poles in the right-of-way, Ms. Pabst said that Verizon is happy to work with staff next year on a reasonable solution. She stated that her perspective is not necessarily a zoning issue but more of a clarification of how things would fall out with the various parties. Ms. Pabst asked the Board to consider a policy issue relating to attachment to County-owned poles. She noted that street furniture was the terminology in the proposed code and Verizon copied that for purposes of clarification. Ms. Pabst suggested that the County keep its options open. She understood that the policy now is to not allow attachment to County-owned poles. Ms. Pabst suggested that the Board not codify that prohibition in the zoning code itself. She could imagine cases in which the preferred solution in a particular area might be to attach an antenna to an existing County-owned pole for aesthetic and other reasons. Ms. Pabst said that by not adopting a prohibition in the code, then the County has the flexibility to make that decision on a case by case basis, depending on the situation. She stated that this change, if acceptable, would delete Subsections 201-2.30c and 430-109.4c. Rich Roche, 819 SW Oak Street, Portland, Oregon, spoke on behalf of AT&T. He said that technology is changing and evolving at an ever-increasing rate. Mr. Roche stated that since 2007, AT&T has seen data usage on their network increase by more than 250,000%. He noted that over half of American homes no longer use traditional land line telephone service and instead choose to be wireless only. Mr. Roche said that to meet increasing demand for wireless

service, AT&T is looking for other viable options for siting. He stated that there is also a company need for regulation to evolve the support infrastructure investments in the community. Mr. Roche thanked the Board for providing him the opportunity to comment on County-proposed changes to the telecommunication facility code. He supported the proposed changes that make the code consistent with federal law and resolve past issues with interpretation of the code. Mr. Roche thanked Ms. Kirkman for her efforts and great job of pulling parties together to discuss the different issues. He submitted a letter, which may be found in the Meeting File. Mr. Roche asked the Board to consider the following:

• Relative to the new poles in the right-of-way, AT&T supports Option 3 on page 5 of the staff report, which will adopt all proposed code changes, including allowing new poles in the right-of-way. If the Board decides to do something different than that, AT&T is open to continue to work with staff.

• Concerning County-owned ‘street furniture’, AT&T is not attached to that term. AT&T suggests that the County zoning code not prohibit placement of wireless facilities on County-owned street furniture or poles. Allowing attachments to the County-owned poles benefits all parties and is something that can be addressed through a non-discriminatory attachment agreement.

James Adkins, 15555 SW Bangy Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, appeared on behalf of the Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBA). (Letter from HBA may be found in the Meeting File.) He originally intended to support Option 1 only but it now sounded as if a combination of Options 1 and 2 would be just as good. Mr. Adkins spoke of the possibility of additional utilities in the public right-of-way. He said that there has been an ongoing issue when local improvements are made or street projects are completed on behalf of the developer and then there is an issue between the timing cost and who is going to pay for the relocation of the utility. Mr. Adkins stated that that is perhaps another code issue that could be talked about later. He supported continuing the conversation and stakeholder outreach per the Planning Commission recommendation until the spring of 2018. Commissioner Terry ascertained that Mr. Adkins supports continuing this to the spring of 2018. Commissioner Rogers asked for clarification of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Ms. Kirkman said that the Planning Commission recommended carrying over the entire ordinance to spring of 2018. The public hearing was closed. There was a motion to carry over Ordinance No. 826 to spring of 2018 – Option 1. Motion – Terry Commissioner Terry asked staff if there is a push to get this done this year.

Ms. Cherniak responded that this decision is at the Board’s pleasure. She said that this has been an issue for staff and the industry for a number of years and this ordinance has been in the works for a couple of years. Ms. Cherniak stated that we can carry on as we have been but the changes would streamline and make the process work a bit better. She concluded that it is possible to carry on as we have been. Commissioner Terry said that it is not that often that the Planning Commission makes such a recommendation and it sounds as if they wanted stakeholders to work on this further. Commissioner Schouten asked if the reason to proceed now is to be in compliance as soon as possible with new federal law and the Spectrum Act. He did not think that many of those issues are controversial. Commissioner Schouten thought it possible to excise the controversial parts out and have those studied further while dealing with the non-controversial pieces now. Ms. Kirkman replied that that was the main purpose of this ordinance, i.e., to look at compliance with federal regulations and also to look at ways in which we can make the process simpler for an applicant. She stated that the right-of-way issue is just one element of it, which is why staff’s recommendation for Option 2 was to allow the bulk of the work to proceed forward while still allowing us to address the main issue for the Planning Commission and HBA. Commissioner Schouten asked why the Planning Commission would not be interested in at least getting us through meeting federal law requirements. Ms. Cherniak could not speak for the Planning Commission. She recalled that a couple of members felt strongly about the right-of-way issue and that dominated the discussion. Ms. Cherniak felt that the rest of the issues did not get fully fleshed out due to the dominance of the primary topic. She said that it was a pretty long hearing and there was a strong feeling that the ordinance could not go forward due to this issue. Commissioner Schouten gathered that all of these right-of-way issues will still be studied further if the Board selects Option 2. Ms. Cherniak verified that that is correct. Mr. Rappleyea said that there was also an issue about interference with band width, which is outside the purview of the County regulations. The motion died for lack of a second. Chair Duyck announced that he will abstain from any vote on this matter. He divulged that he has a potential conflict caused by the fact that his family is involved in negotiating a contract with one of the carriers on a cell tower. Chair Duyck therefore did not feel he could be unbiased in his decision and planned to abstain from any vote on the issue. He wanted the Board to realize that in order to move this forward, three votes are necessary for any action.

It was moved to:

• Order engrossment of the ordinance to reflect the changes described in the September 12, 2017 staff report. As part of the engrossment, Section 430-109.5 is removed (New Telecommunication Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way).

• Ask staff to revisit Section 430-109.5 in the spring of 2018. • Continue the public hearing to October 10 and 24, 2017. • Direct staff to prepare and mail notice of the amendments consistent with requirements

of Chapter X of the County Charter. Motion – Schouten 2nd – Rogers Vote – 4-0-1 Duyck – Abstain Commissioner Terry was not inclined at first to vote in favor of the motion because he wanted to follow the Planning Commission recommendation. Commissioner Rogers seconded the motion due to his belief that it makes sense to follow federal law. He asked about potential harm by extending the entire ordinance to 2018. Commissioner Rogers personally did not see a reason to do that. Ms. Kirkman said that if we were to continue the entire ordinance, it will not affect how we currently look at new towers in the right-of-way. She stated that, currently, it just cannot be approved. Ms. Kirkman said that if we choose Option 2 and proceed with the ordinance and remove that section, things would be the same. Commissioner Malinowski regarded it as a clean-up of the current code but not an increase in any viability for putting them in the right-of-way. Ms. Kirkman agreed with that assessment. Commissioner Malinowski thought of how this would affect the Homebuilders and sought clarification from staff. Ms. Kirkman said that the setback standards are only intended for towers within private properties—not for the right-of-way. Commissioner Malinowski asked if there is a fall zone on the public right-of-way. Ms. Kirkman responded in the negative and likened it to other utility poles. In response to a question by Commissioner Malinowski, Ms. Cherniak stated that if it is on private property, you do have setback requirements.

Commissioner Malinowski sensed that the wireless industry wants access to that right-of-way. He did not have a problem with taking care of the housekeeping so it makes the current language a little better and then working on the other piece later. Commissioner Terry could vote for the motion only if there is a way to assure that the other issues are addressed/corrected next spring. He did not want to leave issues hanging and not be resolved. Commissioner Schouten asked how Commissioner Terry would amend the motion. Commissioner Terry asked County Counsel to help with this language. Chair Duyck suggested that the Board include in the motion direction to staff to revisit this next spring. Commissioner Rogers concurred with working on this early in the spring but did not want to set an artificial timeline. Chair Duyck imagined that the Board may have to come back to give direction to staff regarding specifically what it wants changed, unless staff already has a good idea of that. Ms. Cherniak replied that recommended engrossments in the September 12, 2017 staff report were part of the motion. She said that staff could be working with the Planning Commission over the fall and winter and then consult with the Board prior to the start of the ordinance season as to how to proceed with the right-of-way issue in the spring. 5.b. MO 17-263 Consider Proposed Ordinance No. 827 – an Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code Relating to Parking and Loading Standards (All CPOs) There was a motion to read Proposed Ordinance No. 827 by title only. Motion – Schouten 2nd – Terry Vote – 5-0 Alan Rappleyea read the proposed ordinance by title. Dyami Valentine utilized a PowerPoint presentation, which may be found in the Meeting File. He reviewed that updating the parking standards was identified as a high priority through several of the County’s funding projects—specifically Greening the Development Code (a project completed in 2012), the Aloha-Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan (completed in 2014), Washington County’s Transportation System Plan as well as Washington County’s Consolidated Plan.

Mr. Valentine stated that the Rightsizing the Parking Code study recommended CDC amendments that reflect:

• Stakeholder input • Local, regional, state guidance and policies • Local and national best practices • Local parking utilization studies

Mr. Valentine said that draft recommendations were described in a Long Range Planning Issue Paper, which was distributed in April of 2017. He presented highlights of Ordinance 827, which amends CDC Section 413 to update the County’s parking/loading standards. Mr. Valentine said that amendments affect required off-street parking requirements to better reflect prevailing demand and allow for greater flexibility. He stated that it expands eligibility for reductions based on site-specific context, such as mixed use or shared parking arrangements and establishes parking standards for regulated affordable housing. Mr. Valentine stated that proposed CDC amendments in Section 413-6.1 are supported by findings from the Rightsizing the Parking Code study and include an Appendix B and Issue Paper, which were distributed in April. He said that based on current industry standards and parking utilization findings, the proposed changes increase the flexibility for developers to choose the right amount of parking supply for the respective developments, while maintaining some regulatory assurance that some off-street parking will be provided. Mr. Valentine said that proposed changes in Section 413-8—changes to reductions based on site context—would expand the reductions. He stated that these reductions help provide more flexibility for developers to rightsize parking supply based on access to transit, vanpool, bike parking and mixed use factors that curb parking demand. Mr. Valentine said that CDC Section 413-8 allows up to a maximum of 50% reduction—an increase from what is currently allowed (40% reduction). He noted that the transit reduction is revised to provide consistent terminology with that which is now in the Transportation System Plan and expands the allowed reduction of the 30% increase from the 20%. Mr. Valentine said that it also sets a flat reduction rate for bicycle parking rather than a tiered approach. Mr. Valentine told the Board that staff introduced the concept of shared parking agreements to more efficiently utilize parking supply. He said that Section 413-8.4 allows for mixed use development with two or more uses to reduce the number of parking spaces required if there is an agreement in place to jointly use the same pool of parking and loading spaces. Mr. Valentine explained that the intention is to incentivize mixed-use development by providing more parking. He stated that Section 413-8.5 introduced the option to reduce minimum number of off-street parking spaces for non-residential uses if on-street parking is available. Mr. Valentine said that staff also included the opportunity for developers to conduct a parking analysis to more precisely calibrate the correct amount of parking specifically for the site, based on context. He added that it would allow a reduction of up to 100%.

Mr. Valentine informed the Board that the ordinance also includes regulated affordable housing provisions. He said that parking has been identified as a key impediment to increasing the supply of housing—units affordable to households between 0% and 80% of the median family income. Mr. Valentine stated that establishing flexibility in parking standards of the policy addresses this impediment and was identified as a key priority through the process of amending the parking code. He said that the ordinance establishes a new use category for regulated affordable housing, which is currently defined as housing affordable to households at 60% of median family income. Mr. Valentine stated that this is covered by compliance agreement and would remain at that level for 20 years. He said that minimum off-street parking requirement, as included in the ordinance, is a 25% to 50% reduction from other residential use categories and is based on census data and parking utilization studies, which have demonstrated lower car ownership, auto trip generation and resulting in less parking demand. Mr. Valentine stated that there are new standards for electric vehicle parking, which would allow for the opportunity for electric vehicle charging spaces to substitute for standard parking spaces at a one to one ratio for the purpose of meeting minimum off-street parking requirements. He said that the ordinance also includes provisions for motorcycle parking spaces, which are also allowed to count for minimum off-street parking. Mr. Valentine stated that Section 413-2.1 expands the maximum distance that developers are allowed to site off-street parking for non-residential uses within transit-oriented developments; currently, this is 400 feet and this would increase to 800 feet to help foster pedestrian-scaled development and reflect reduced priority for automobile access to these locations. Mr. Valentine stated that Section 413-4 incorporates a graphic for off-street parking lot design, which reflects the amendments in the ordinance and re-formats information regarding aisle and stall dimensions for two existing tables into one combined table. He said that Section 413-3.5 reduces the minimum amount of vehicle spaces necessary to trigger the requirement for building a separate walkway at off-street parking lots from 100 spaces to 50 spaces in order to facilitate safe pedestrian access and circulation. Mr. Valentine stated that the proposed amendments also increase the maximum distance allowed for on-street parking from 100 feet to 200 feet and increases the spaces allowed from 8 to 12. Mr. Valentine recalled that on August 16 and September 6, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted its public hearings on Ordinance 827. He said that upon conclusion of the public testimony and deliberation, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend that the Board adopt 827 with several amendments:

• The Planning Commission requested removing restrictions against renting or leasing of parking spaces. Although the current provision does not limit the property owner from leasing parking spaces that are in excess of the required parking and code enforcement staff do not recollect having an enforcement action relating to this provision, staff agrees that changes are warranted. (These are illustrated in the staff report.)

• The Planning Commission recommended adding clarifying language that makes auto and RV sales parking/storage areas exempt from pedestrian access provisions. Staff concurs that this provision should be targeted and clarifying language is added as an exhibit in the

staff report to say that pedestrian access only applies to parking lots or customers, residents or employees and explicitly exempts auto and RV sales lots.

• The Planning Commission recommended revising the definition of regulated affordable housing so that the proposed minimum parking standard would apply to developments with units affordable to households at or below 80% of median family income rather than the 60% proposed in the ordinance. The challenge raised through this process is how to define regulated affordable housing. Staff believes that as it relates to parking and affordable housing policy, key considerations are demonstrated need and a rational nexus to parking demand.

• The Planning Commission recommended capping the amount of parking reductions that can be granted to affordable housing developments. Staff raised the issue that affordable housing developers could potentially exercise the full 50% reduction which is considered in the ordinance, which would result in a minimum ratio of .375 spaces per unit. Staff’s findings suggest that a range of parking ratios from .5 to .75 per unit is reasonable and that the .375 is below that threshold. Staff recommends that the resulting parking spaces per unit after all allowable context based reductions are applied, should be .5 spaces per unit—regardless of whether it is affordable or market rate.

Mr. Valentine recommended that the Board direct engrossment of this ordinance to reflect the changes described in the staff report and continue the hearing to October 10 and 24, 2017. Commissioner Malinowski asked if staff is reducing bicycle, as well as auto, parking. Mr. Valentine replied that the ordinance does not really address bicycle parking other than where it affects the allowed reduction to off-street vehicle parking. He said that the code currently allows a reduction to off-street vehicle parking based on the amount of bicycle parking that is provided in a tiered approach based on how large the parking lot is going to be. Mr. Valentine stated that the amendment would provide a flat rate, provide more clarity and cap the amount of reduction available. Commissioner Malinowski gathered that it caps the reduction and not the number. Chair Duyck had the same concern. Commissioner Malinowski noted that the Planning Commission recommended reductions at 80% of the median family income rather than the current 60%. He said that the 60% is, in reality, the bottom 30% of wage earners because the median is the 50% point. Commissioner Malinowski wondered how it is decided which unit gets the parking spot and which does not. He asked if there would be an extra charge for getting a parking spot. Commissioner Malinowski has heard that some landlords have decided to charge for parking and when that happens, the neighborhoods around that development get buried in excess parked cars. He was curious how it will work in a lot where there are 100 units but only 50 parking spaces. Commissioner Malinowski asked if we regulate that at all.

Mr. Valentine responded that we do not and it is at the discretion of the development or management of the property. He said that the data would suggest that the 50 spaces would adequately accommodate the demand of those developments. Commissioner Terry said that people living in downtown Portland with no parking will find a spot somehow. Regarding the .05 to .75, he asked if that is handled during the process of the issuing and permitting. Mr. Valentine replied that that is correct and occurs through the development review process. The public hearing was opened. James Adkins, Homebuilders Association, commended staff for their work on this and for the thoughtful approach they have taken in the area of stakeholder outreach. He supported the amendments suggested by the Planning Commission. Mr. Adkins said that it does not sound like there is a perfect answer to Commissioner Malinowski’s question but supported the idea of reducing the parking requirements for the affordable housing to reduce the overall cost of these developments. The public hearing was closed. It was moved to:

• Order engrossment of the ordinance to include the changes described in the staff report . • Continue the hearing to October 10 and October 24, 2017. • Direct staff to prepare and mail notice of the amendments consistent with requirements

of Chapter X of the County Charter. Motion – Schouten 2nd – Terry Vote – 5-0 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS – COUNTY COUNSEL 6.a. ESPD Conduct Second Reading of ESPD Ordinance No. 1 – an Ordinance Regulating Enhanced Chronic Nuisance Property in ESPD Areas (All CPOs) It was moved to read ESPD Ordinance No. 1 by title only. Motion – Terry 2nd – Rogers Vote – 5-0 Alan Rappleyea read the proposed ordinance by title.

Elmer Dickens reviewed that the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District is a Chapter 451 Municipal Corporation formed in 1987. He said that it was adopted by voters to provide residents of urban unincorporated Washington County with an urban level of law enforcement. Mr. Dickens added that it has been continued many times over the years, based on findings that the District continues to be necessary to provide those services and there is significant public support for the District. Mr. Dickens stated that ESPD Ordinance No. 1—an ordinance regulating enhanced chronic nuisance properties—is based upon the existing County chronic nuisance ordinance that we already have. He said that it is probably 80% the same. Mr. Dickens stated that the difference between this and the regular chronic nuisance ordinance is that this is an enhanced version, which effectively lowers the triggers for when a property could become a chronic nuisance. He recalled that the chronic nuisance ordinance for the County was put into place several years ago and because the triggers are set at a relatively high level, it is rarely ever used. Mr. Dickens stated that within the boundaries of ESPD, there are a number of properties which are plagued by criminal and nuisance activities that undermine the neighborhood, seriously affect livability and cause problems for communities. He informed the Board that these are unable to be addressed by deputies because existing County ordinances do not lend themselves to address and resolve the problems. Mr. Dickens said that the ordinance would provide the tools needed to address the chronic nuisance problems. He stated that even though this is an enhanced level of enforcement, there are still multiple opportunities built into the ordinance for a property owner to cooperate and resolve these issues, short of enforcement action. Mr. Dickens summarized that there is a lot of due process built in. He said that if a property owner willfully chooses to ignore those opportunities and foist these problems off on the community, there is a significant hammer that could eventually be brought to bear in the form of civil penalties and, ultimately, a Hearings Officer decision to completely close the property for up to six months. Mr. Dickens reported that the ESPD Advisory Board is very supportive of this ordinance, as is the Sheriff’s Office. The public hearing was opened. No public testimony was given. The public hearing was closed. It was moved to adopt ESPD Ordinance No. 1. Motion – Rogers 2nd – Schouten Vote – 5-0 Roll Call: All Aye

Chair Duyck thanked Sheriff’s Office staff and ESPD Advisory Committee members in the audience for attending today’s meeting. Commissioner Schouten appreciated the attendance of residents of SW 192nd Street in Aloha also. 6.b. ESPD Conduct Second Reading of ESPD Ordinance No. 2 – an Ordinance Regulating Enhanced Parking and Towing in ESPD Areas It was moved to read Proposed ESPD Ordinance No. 2 by title only. Motion – Rogers 2nd – Malinowski Vote – 5-0 Alan Rappleyea read the proposed ordinance by title. Elmer Dickens stated that this ordinance, like ESPD Ordinance No. 1, is an enhanced version of existing County code. He said that it is based on Washington County Code 8.16, which has been in place for many years. Mr. Dickens stated that this addresses some of the problems that have been chronic in the ESPD District. He said that vehicle parking in the District is becoming a growing issue. Mr. Dickens stated that, specifically, parking is a growing problem in all communities, such as people living in vehicles on public streets. He said that this ordinance attempts to put into place a resolution to that by allowing them to stay for up to 48 hours in any single location. Mr. Dickens stated that at the end of that 48 hours, the vehicle could be tagged by a deputy with a notice that they need to move it, which would provide an additional 24 hours to get that done before a tow occurs. He said that if they remain in that location in violation of the ordinance, they could be towed after 72 hours. Mr. Dickens went on to say that if they move the vehicle two miles away, they can again stay two days. Mr. Dickens said that another thing addressed has been a chronic problem for deputies. He stated that there is limited parking on residential streets and two common complaints are about recreational vehicles taking up a number of vehicle spaces in a given block and semi-trucks parked in residential areas. Mr. Dickens clarified that these are not slated for immediate towing. He said that if they are in violation, they would be tagged by a deputy and if they remain there after 24 hours, they could be towed. Mr. Dickens stated that there is an exception for recreational vehicles: people can leave them there for four days in any month. Mr. Dickens told the Board that the ESPD Advisory Board and the Sheriff’s Office support adoption of this ordinance. The public hearing was opened.

Gary Burns read through the ordinance while waiting to testify and said that it does appear to address people living in recreational vehicles but does not address vehicles that are legally registered that have not moved in 48 hours. His understanding was that that will be allowed to continue as long as the tags are current. Mr. Burns stated that this does not help the parking problem. Mr. Dickens affirmed that the ordinance is focused on recreational vehicles. Mr. Burns observed that the County still has not addressed the parking problem on public streets. He said that there are still a large number of vehicles that are legally registered but have not moved in six months and are using the public street as storage. Mr. Burns stated that utility trailers are very bad because they are non-motorized vehicles tying up the streets. He testified that Clean Water Services cannot sweep the streets because all these vehicles are blocking them. Mr. Burns decided that this ordinance falls way short of what needs to be done. Commissioner Rogers appreciated Mr. Burns’ line of questioning and asked the same questions at a recent Worksession on this topic. He asked staff how to prevent Mr. Burns’ concerns. Mr. Dickens responded that the existing County ordinance and this ordinance deal with disabled vehicles. He clarified that for regular vehicles, we recognize that there is a problem but did not want to take on so much at one time. Mr. Dickens explained that we are trying to take this in incremental steps. He noted that these are the first two ESPD ordinances ever and the Sheriff’s Office wanted to get a feel for how the process works and if it works before asking the Board for additional authority. Commissioner Rogers supported the stair stepping approach. However, he asked staff what the next action will be. Mr. Dickens replied that we will first determine how the enforcement is going and the residents’ reaction. He explained that the Sheriff’s Office plan is not to enforce this right away in an aggressive manner. Mr. Dickens stated that they will first educate and learn before ultimately citing if people refuse to comply. He said that if it is decided that storing vehicles on a street is a level of enforcement desired by the Board, the ESPD Advisory Committee and Sheriff’s Office will craft the next ordinance. Mr. Rappleyea stated that the ordinance does prohibit people from using vehicles for sleeping—not just recreational vehicles. Commissioner Rogers agreed with Mr. Burns’ comments but did not think that we get there with this ordinance. Commissioner Terry asked if some of this can be handled under previous ordinances. Chair Duyck asked Commissioner Terry to clarify his question as to whether he is referring to within the public right-of-way or on private property.

Commissioner Terry would like to hear about both because both are a problem. Mr. Dickens said that this ordinance and Washington County Code 8.16 look at different types of vehicles:

• Abandoned vehicles, i.e., vehicles from which the owner has completely walked away and has no further interest in.

• Disabled vehicles, i.e., vehicles that may be missing a motor or transmission and has one tire.

Mr. Dickens indicated that those vehicles can be dealt with currently. He said that it is the cars that are registered to the property that sit there months at a time and are licensed and insured that Mr. Burns is describing. Mr. Dickens reiterated that the ordinances do not yet cover that. Mr. Burns wondered what he can do to light a fire to get something done about this. He remarked that the deputies have been great to work with but their hands are tied. Mr. Burns was frustrated. Mr. Rappleyea said that there has been an ongoing debate for years regarding levels of service outside of cities. He stated that that is a policy issue for the Board. Mr. Rappleyea said that in the past, the decision about level of service has been at relatively lower levels of service outside of cities. Commissioner Schouten believed that we are taking first steps and need to see how this plays out. As for vehicles left on private property which are abandoned or wrecks, he thought that those could be addressed by the public nuisance ordinance just adopted. Mr. Dickens agreed that that could be addressed under the chronic nuisance ordinance. He added that it is something largely regulated by Land Use and Transportation in the Community Development Code. Gary Burns reiterated his question of what he can do to push this along faster. Commissioner Schouten said that not everyone agrees with Mr. Burns’ point of view. He noted that some people think they have the right to put their vehicles in the public street. Mr. Burns did not think it makes sense to use the public streets for vehicle storage. Chair Duyck stated that it gets a little more complicated than that and has to be determined where to draw the line. Mr. Burns believed that the Board needs to draw that line. He added that other municipalities have done this.

Chair Duyck stated that County policy has been that if you want that level of service, that is what cities provide. He knew that this is not what a lot of people want to hear. Chair Duyck said that the Board is dealing incrementally with some of the livability issues but to do it in one broad stroke, we would want to be a city and would want the tax rate that cities get along with that in order to enforce. Mr. Burns said that it impairs other County operations from being effective. He reiterated that Clean Water Services cannot clean the streets and the fire department cannot get into an area due to junk in the way. The following individuals testified without signing in and so names may be misspelled. Benton Johnson, 20360 SW Shelley Court, Aloha, Oregon, testified that he gets a good response from the Sheriff’s Office when he calls in derelict, unlicensed vehicles. He said that SW 203rd was getting overloaded with vehicles that had not moved for awhile. Mr. Johnson checked them out and found them to be unlicensed, with no tags, and with flat tires. He asked the deputies to come out and within 72 hours, those vehicles were gone. Randy VanderZanden, 6201 SW 192nd, said that he has been working with Commissioner Schouten for years on several issues. His concern centered on the area on SW 192nd from SW Murphy Court to SW Farmington Road. Mr. VanderZanden stated that this is a busy street year-round. He said that safety is a main concern as well as the long term, legally parked, licensed vehicles on the street that have sat there for months and years. Mr. VanderZanden stated that a food cart, motorhome and trailer are also on the street. He said that all of these make driving down 192nd very dangerous. Mr. VanderZanden stated that school buses going down the street often cause one-way traffic due to the congestion caused by these legally parked vehicles. He said that Clean Water Services’ street cleaning service has to go around these vehicles and cannot complete the job due to the cars in their way. Mr. VanderZanden acknowledged the fine work done by the Washington County Sheriff Department. He has worked with several deputies in the past and found them all to be good people to work with. Mr. VanderZanden has been told that they are doing the best they can do until the Board takes further action. Chair Duyck noted that members of the Sheriff’s Office are in the audience and will take these comments back to the department. Edna Ridenauer, 19180 SW Murphy Court, Aloha, Oregon, has personally almost taken the lives of a couple of children when driving from Farmington Road to her street. She could not see them because of the large recreational vehicle that is parked there. Ms. Ridenauer was upset to have this in the neighborhood. She was concerned, too, about cars parking almost right up to the corner and then turning cars come very close to a large white van that is parked there. Ms. Ridenauer appreciated the work that the County is trying to do to support the Sheriff’s Department because they come out and help residents. She asked the Board to give this heavy duty thought. Ms. Ridenauer also appreciated Commissioner Schouten’s work with residents. She lives in a diverse neighborhood and wants it to work well and for residents to be friendly with each other. Ms. Ridenauer hoped everyone would be a good neighbor and work hard to make that happen.

Howard Speering, SW 190th and Farmington Road, Beaverton, Oregon, agreed that the Sheriff’s Department does a good job. He said that the code enforcement officer took care of about ten of these problem vehicles but there were probably ten more the next year. Mr. Speering stated that only one code enforcement office was designated to do this work and so he hoped some funding would be increased so that we could get more of these officers. He stated that a lot of people do not know that something can be done about these nuisance vehicles. Mr. Speering said that one problem on 192nd has to do with three duplexes and one triplex. His understanding is that each individual house is allowed four drivable vehicles and one non-drivable vehicle. Mr. Speering calculated that this comes to about 36 vehicles that legally can be parked on the street because they allow four for every unit. He concluded that it is really difficult to drive down some of these streets. Mr. Speering hoped that the parking would be resolved with the new ordinance on recreational vehicles. Commissioner Schouten thought that there is funding available inside the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District for the kind of limited increased enforcement that is anticipated by these ordinances. He said that there is funding for that but not beyond that. Commissioner Schouten asked if Mr. Dickens has comments regarding Mr. Speerer’s testimony. Mr. Dickens agreed that there is a problem in some neighborhoods with vehicles that are legally parked. He said that this gets to the issue of what level of service we provide and what level of enforcement we provide in the County. Mr. Dickens observed that even though we have an urban unincorporated area, not all of the County is that way. As to the funding issue, he said that the Sheriff’s Office feels that they have the ability to do some increased incremental enforcement on these types of issues. Mr. Dickens stated that if the Board were to take a significant step forward, they would need additional funding in terms of code enforcement. Chair Duyck mentioned that the Board has, in conjunction with the Sheriff’s Office, explored the possibility of including funding within the renewal of the ESPD levies for code enforcement and the support simply was not there. He said that this does not mean that we have given up because as public opinions change, that could be revised. Commissioner Malinowski said that this may be small but will, in some cases, make a difference. He said that we are increasing the rate to pay to register your car and so this may cause some people to let some of these vehicles go. Commissioner Malinowski stated that once the tags are expired, people can call the Sheriff and have these towed. Commissioner Rogers thought it appropriate to go ahead with the ordinance to get something that addresses the majority of the issues. He understood the debate about municipal services in the cities and the county and who should do what and how. Commissioner Rogers hoped the Board would encourage the ESPD Board and others to look again at the issue to see how much mission creep we have. He recognized that this is very complex. Commissioner Rogers spoke of funding issues regarding enforcement and issues regarding how long people think they can park. He encouraged the Board to pass this to solve some of the problems and to continue to move forward.

It was moved to adopt ESPD Ordinance No. 2. Motion – Rogers 2nd – Malinowski Vote – 5-0 Roll Call: All Aye Audience applause concluded this agenda item. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATION (5-MINUTE OPPORTUNITY) None. 8. BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Duyck announced that next week, Worksession will begin at 2:00 p.m. and Regular Board Meeting will convene at 6:30 p.m. He stated that the October 3, 2017 Board meeting will be cancelled due to lack of quorum. Chair Duyck added that a meeting has been added on the fifth Tuesday, October 31, 2017, to make up for the cancelled meeting. Commissioner Schouten announced that he will be away on business and vacation from September 26, 2017 to October 13, 2017. He will miss the September 26th meeting and the one on October 10th. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 12:13 p.m. Motion – Malinowski 2nd – Terry Vote – 5-0 MINUTES APPROVED THIS ____ DAY _________________________ 2017 _______________________________ ______________________________ RECORDING SECRETARY CHAIRMAN