Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 814 Page ... · A copy of the TriMet Southwest...

Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 814

August 29, 2016 of 10

Ordinance No. 814 proposes amendments to the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, the Transportation System Plan and the Community Development Code to address transportation-related issues. These amendments are proposed to make clean-up changes, improve consistency with other plans, and address inconsistences in the Community Development Code. The specific amendments are discussed in the staff report. IV. BACKGROUND Proposed Ordinance No. 814 is primarily a clean-up of transportation-related topics that were not covered by the Transportation System Plan (TSP) updates adopted in 2013 and 2014 (nor the minor amendments adopted in 2015). In addition, proposed Ordinance No. 814 addresses two recommendations identified in Long Range Planning Issue Paper 2016-01: ‘Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area’ (Attachment A), and referred to throughout the remainder of this report as the ‘Walkway Gaps’ Issue Paper. A more in-depth description of Ordinance No. 814 is included in the Analysis section of this report. Ordinance Notification Ordinance No. 814 and an accompanying summary were mailed to citizen participation organizations (CPOs) and interested parties on July 6, 2016. A display advertisement regarding the proposed ordinance was published in the Washington County Argus and The Oregonian newspapers on July 13, 2016 and July 15, 2016 respectively. Individual Notice 2016-06 describing proposed Ordinance No. 814 was mailed to 314 people on the General Notification List on July 20, 2016. A copy of this notice was also mailed to the Planning Commission at that time. V. ANALYSIS Proposed Ordinance No. 814 has four exhibits. Amendments to the Rural/Natural Resource Plan and the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (Exhibits 1 and 2) The amendments to the Rural/Natural Resource Plan and Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area are housekeeping in nature and update references to the TSP. TSP Amendments (Exhibit 3) Amendments proposed to the TSP include updates to the mobility policy and glossary to remove references to ‘Regional Street Design Overlay’ and ‘Boulevards.’ In 2014, the TSP adopted ‘Streetscape Overlays’ and ‘Pedestrian Parkways’ as new designations with revised definitions for these features. The TSP amendments made in 2014 and 2015 failed to remove the references


August 29, 2016 of 10

to the previous designations and this amendment proposes to correct this oversight. The revised designations have been incorporated into the Pedestrian System Map. Adding these designations to the Pedestrian System Map was intended to reduce the number of maps and make it easier to find and apply the features. The 2010 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) adopted similar designations. The ‘Streetscape Overlays’ and ‘Pedestrian Parkways’ designations in the updated TSP are intended to be consistent with the RTP designations. The functional classification designation of Church Street and South Street in Gaston was discussed with city of Gaston staff during the review of appropriate streets for consideration in the Major Street Transportation Improvement Program. The Collector designation is proposed due to the longer distance of trips traveling this route through town. The proposed amendments to the lane numbers designation on Wilkins Street and along 205th/206th Avenue in Hillsboro were mistakenly omitted from A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. The proposed amendments rectify this omission. The lane numbers designations were included on the unofficial map produced as part of the review of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, however, the designation itself was not included in the ordinance. The revised lane number designations are consistent with the city of Hillsboro’s TSP and Amberglen Plan. The proposed amendment will designate these roadways as intended and discussed during development of the TSP. The proposed amendment to the Pedestrian System Map will designate the Waterhouse Trail as a Community Trail rather than a Regional Trail. This change is proposed to be consistent with the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District (THPRD) Trails Masterplan. THPRD intends to focus on the development of the Westside Trail as the main north-south regional trail. The Waterhouse Trail is now envisioned a parallel and supporting facility rather than a regional facility. The amendments to the Transit System Map are intended to be consistent with the TriMet Southwest Service Enhancement Plan (SWSEP). A copy of the TriMet Southwest Service Enhancement Plan is attached for reference (Attachment B). The SWSEP was adopted by the TriMet board in December 2015. The Transit System Map in the TSP had transit designations consistent with transit planning before the SWSEP was adopted. The SWSEP is the result of over a year and a half of community engagement and the development of a long-range service improvements and expansion vision for TriMet’s southwest service area. A copy of the proposed Transit System Map will be available at the hearing to show the overall transit system if the proposed amendments in Exhibit 3 are adopted. Community Development Code (CDC) Amendments (Exhibit 4) Several amendments are proposed to the CDC to address transportation-related issues. The amendment to CDC Section 418-2 (Additional Setbacks Required for Future Right-of-Way) was suggested by Current Planning staff to clarify existing practices for determining setback requirements. The existing language does not indicate where the setback for future right-of-way is to be measured from. Also in certain circumstances where the existing right-of-way is not symmetrical and/or not coincident with the existing traveled way, no mechanism for an


August 29, 2016 of 10

alternative setback is provided. The amendment is intended to clarify how the setback is to be determined. The amendment proposed to CDC Section 501-2.5 (Application of the Public Facility and Services Standards Inside a UGB) was not included in A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 802 (Bonny Slope West) because the Transportation System Development Charge for Bonny Slope West was not adopted until January 19, 2016 which was after the adoption of Ordinance No. 802. Ordinance No. 814 provides an opportunity to amend the CDC to include a provision similar to the North Bethany Transportation System Development Charge. The amendments proposed to CDC Section 501-8 (Standards for Development) clarify that roadway alignments designated in the TSP are conceptual and may be adjusted within a subject property. This provides consistency with how the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule requires that transportation planning in Oregon be conducted (ORS 660-012-0010). The amendment to CDC Section 502-1 regarding sidewalk standards is Recommendation No. 8 in the ‘Walkway Gaps’ Issue Paper: “Clarify or revise conflicting Community Development Code (CDC) sections regarding the circumstances in which public improvements are required.” The proposed change is intended to make CDC Section 502-1 consistent with CDC Section 501-2. As described in the Issue Paper (page 14):

Sidewalks are one of several facilities regulated by CDC Section 501-2. Consistent with Comprehensive Framework Plan Policy 14 (Managing Growth), “on-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the public right-of-way” are designated as an essential service and “off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities” are designated as a desirable service (CDC Section 501-7.1). Additional regulations specific to sidewalks are included in CDC Section 502. Development subject to the Public Facility and Service Standards includes all land divisions, property line adjustments, new construction of structures and expansion of existing structures, with some exceptions. The most notable exception is for “construction of a single (one [1] only) detached dwelling unit or duplex on an approved duplex lot…” (CDC Section 501-2.2).

However, CDC Section 502-1.4 states: Sidewalks shall be required to be constructed prior to occupancy for the following development in the unincorporated areas of Washington County within an Urban Growth Boundary: A. All development that is subject to the Public Facility and Service Standards as required by

Section 501-2, except for: (1) Private streets for four (4) or fewer dwelling units pursuant to Section 409-3.3 A. (1),

(2), and (4 - 7); and (2) Residential development that meets the exemption criteria in Section 502-14; or

B. One (1) detached dwelling unit or one (1) duplex on a legally created lot or parcel when:


August 29, 2016 of 10

(1) The lot or parcel has two hundred fifty (250) feet or less of street frontage; and (2) A sidewalk or temporary sidewalk exists, or is required to be constructed as part of a

development approval, on an adjacent lot or parcel with the same street frontage.

While CDC Sections 501-2.2 and 502-1.4 may appear to be at odds, Current Planning staff has developed an administrative interpretation to exempt sidewalk requirements for single family detached homes on lots of record. This is based on the premise that a home to be constructed on a lot of record would not generate trips over and above what was already permitted on the site, and therefore public improvements would not be proportional to the development. The proposed change to CDC Section 502-1.4 will remove the conflicting language allowing CDC Section 501-2.2 to continue to be implemented as interpreted by Current Planning staff. The requirements for sidewalks on new private streets continue as currently provided for in CDC Section 409 (Private Streets) and no changes to CDC Section 409 are being proposed. Only the requirements for sidewalks along the public street frontage in these circumstances would be clarified. The intent of this amendment is to strengthen and clarify the sidewalk requirements consistent with the recommendation in the ‘Walkway Gaps’ Issue Paper. The amendment proposed to CDC Section 502-14.2 was suggested by Current Planning staff based on existing practices for determining exemptions from the construction of sidewalks. Existing Subsection E contains two numbered sections that reiterate the language in Subsection E itself. The redundant language is confusing when determining if a proposed development meets the exemption standard. The proposed amendment is not intended to change the standard for the exemption. No substantive changes to current practice are proposed and the existing exemptions with the proposed language would not be affected. It should be noted that the language in CDC Section 502-14.2 intentionally does not refer to Neighborhood Routes. Neighborhood Routes are not exempt under CDC Section 502-14.2 and the qualifying measurement distance extends to a Collector or Arterial but does not stop at a Neighborhood Route. The amendment proposed for CDC Section 702 (Exempt Projects) would add a category of projects exempt from the requirements of CDC Article VII (Public Transportation Facilities). This is very different than an exemption from the requirement to build a sidewalk discussed under CDC Section 502 above. Article VII requirements are for the implementation of a public improvement. This proposed exemption would reduce the requirements for public improvements intended to exclusively serve pedestrian and bicycles. This amendment is Recommendation No. 9 in the ‘Walkway Gaps’ Issue Paper: “Amend Article VII of the CDC to exempt from land use review walkway projects that would require additional right-of-way but would otherwise meet the requirements of CDC Section 702-4 (Exempt Projects).” Article VII functions as the development review requirements for public transportation projects. New capital construction improvements within unincorporated Washington County must meet the requirements of Article VII. This land use review procedure is beyond the level of review and scrutiny that most public agencies require.


August 29, 2016 of 10

The proposed exemption would allow the acquisition of right-of-way and construction of walkways, sidewalks, bike lanes, trails and other improvements intended exclusively for bicycles and pedestrians without an Article VII review. The criteria proposed in Recommendation No. 9 of the ‘Walkway Gaps’ Issue Paper has been expanded to ensure that multimodal improvements are appropriately reviewed. A number of walkway improvements can be implemented as minor improvement projects and this exemption is intended to reduce the administrative costs of such improvements. Proposed Ordinance No. 814 is intended to address the legislative recommendations from the ‘Walkway Gaps’ Issue Paper. See Attachment A for details on each recommendation listed below. Other recommendations from the ‘Walkway Gaps’ Issue Paper

• Numbers 1 through 6 are administrative recommendations that are all at different stages of being addressed by staff.

• Numbers 7 through 11 are potential legislative changes. An Issue Paper to address Recommendation No. 7 (Replace/Revise R&O 86-95) is under development and is expected to be discussed by the Board later this year.

• Number 8 is proposed to be addressed by the changes to CDC Section 502 discussed above.

• Number 9 is proposed to be addressed by the changes to CDC Section 702 discussed above.

• Numbers 10 and 11 are outside the ability of planning staff to advance via ordinance. Recommendation No. 10, “Take limited actions to address improvement needs on non-county public roadways in Urban Unincorporated Washington County” requires separate Board action on a case-by-case basis. These actions may require coordination with individual property owners and targeted investment of funds to provide appropriate public walkways or other facilities.

• Recommendation No. 11, “Examine, consider, and discuss other financial tools listed in “Appendix A”. These can come back to the Board as separate work sessions discussion” is more appropriate for the Board to consider during ongoing funding decisions and/or the development of new transportation-related revenue sources. Neither of these last two recommendations can be addressed through an ordinance process at this time.

Planning Commissioners Enloe and Manseau had a number of questions regarding proposed Ordinance No. 814. Staff responses to these questions are attached (Attachments C and D). Potential Engrossment Options Two separate potential engrossment options are submitted for the Board’s consideration:


August 29, 2016 of 10

Planning Commission Recommended Engrossment At its August 3, 2016 hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that Ordinance No. 814 include a technical change to CDC Section 502-1.4, by adding, “or as allowed by Section 409.” The proposed engrossment language is shown as underlined and shaded text below. SECTION 502 - SIDEWALK STANDARDS 502-1 Intent, Purpose, Application, Authority, Requirement *** 502-1.4 Sidewalks shall be required to be constructed prior to occupancy for development in

the unincorporated areas of Washington County within an urban growth boundary. This applies to a development that is subject to the Public Facility and Service Standards as required by Section 501-2, except for residential development that meets the exemption criteria in Section 502-14 or as allowed by Section 409.

*** This engrossment would clarify that sidewalk requirements for private streets are controlled by the requirements of CDC Section 409 (Private Streets) and not Article V. The original amendment to CDC Section 502-1.4 as filed in Ordinance No. 814 removed the reference to CDC Section 409. The reference to Section 409 was proposed to be deleted because the requirements in Article V do not apply to private streets. However, staff supports the Planning Commission’s recommendation that adding the language as shown above will clarify that the intent of Ordinance No. 814 is not to amend the sidewalk requirements for private streets. Alternative Option for Engrossment A second potential engrossment option is also submitted for the Board to think about as a policy consideration in response to discussions regarding public facility requirements. This engrossment is not recommended by staff or the Planning Commission. Proposed Ordinance No. 814 does not address public facility requirements for obtaining a building permit to construct a new dwelling unit on an approved lot of record. Staff has evaluated various options for public facility requirements related to a building permit for an existing legally established lot of record. Currently, the CDC prescribes that once a lot has been legally established for a single dwelling unit, the public facility requirements are assumed to have been satisfied and it is not subject to additional public facilities review.1 An owner of an existing legally established lot currently can apply for and receive a building permit for a single

1 On lands designated as R-5 or R-6 a future development plan that demonstrates how the entire site can be ultimately developed is required (CDC Sections 302.-6.3 and 303-6.3).


August 29, 2016 of 10

dwelling unit without a requirement for dedicating right-of-way. A couple of questions regarding public facility requirements and building permits on a lot of record to consider are: 1. Does building a house on an existing legally established lot of record have an additional

impact on existing public facilities beyond what was assessed when the lot was created?

2. A land division that creates a lot is subject to public facility requirements. Does adding an additional public facility requirement for an existing lot of record create a circumstance where public facility requirements might be assessed twice?

Implementing public facility requirements for an existing lot of record would likely be difficult given current review procedures. Last year, the County issued building permits for more than 1,000 single family homes. Likely 99% or more of these were on lots of record that already were subject to the public facility requirements because they were a part of a subdivision or partition of land. Furthermore, requiring additional public facilities for a single, legally established lot of record may not withstand challenges on appeal. On the other hand, an existing lot of record may not be consistent with more recently adopted transportation plans or public facility standards. In such circumstances, the lot of record may be able to dedicate right-of-way such that it would be more consistent with current plans and/or standards. Additional requirements beyond right-of-way (such as sidewalk construction) may be desirable, but normally considered to be more than a proportional exaction. Dedication of right-of-way may affect the ability of the property to develop and also may affect the placement of the dwelling on the property. Due to uncertainty regarding the questions above, adding language requiring the dedication of right-of-way as part of a building permit on an existing lot of record may create language in the CDC that cannot be implemented. The language is provided to give Board members specific language for consideration of this issue, although staff and the Planning Commission do not recommend it. Regardless of the staff and Planning Commission recommendation, the Board may want to engross Ordinance No. 814 to add CDC requirements for right-of-way dedication prior to a building permit approval on an existing lot of record. Staff will provide examples of existing lots of record that may be impacted by this policy change at the September 6 hearing. If such an engrossment is desired, the following engrossment language (shown as underlined and shaded) could be added to Exhibit 4, or could be explored further as a long range planning work program item for 2017. SECTION 501 - PUBLIC FACILITY AND SERVICE REQUIREMENTS *** 501-2 Application of the Public Facility and Service Standards Inside a UGB ***


August 29, 2016 of 10

501-2.6 Construction of a single (one [1] only) detached dwelling unit or duplex on an

approved duplex lot (Section 430-13.3) shall dedicate right-of-way as specified in Section 501-8.4.B.

*** 501-8 Standards for Development *** 501-8.4 Dedication of Right-of-Way

A. Except as provided in Section 418-2.2, dedication of right-of-way shall be required pursuant to the Functional Classification and Lane Numbers of the facility as designated by the Washington County Transportation System Plan and based upon the County Road Design and Construction Standards. B. Construction of a single (one [1] only) detached dwelling unit or duplex on an

approved duplex lot (Section 430-13.3) shall dedicate right-of-way along the site’s frontage(s) equal to half the maximum right-of-way designated in the Functional Classification Design Parameters Table in the Transportation System Plan.

Summary of Proposed Changes Ordinance No. 814 proposes to amend the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, the Transportation System Plan and the Community Development Code to address transportation-related issues. These amendments are proposed to make minor clean-up changes, improve consistency with other plans, and address inconsistences in the CDC. Specifically, the proposed amendments are:

Housekeeping amendments to the Rural/Natural Resource Plan and Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area.

Amendments to Washington County Transportation System Plan Goal 5: Mobility and Glossary – to correct references and remove terms no longer in use.

Amendments to several Washington County Transportation System Plan maps to maintain consistency with other adopted planning efforts.

CDC Section 418-2 – Amendment to clarify setback requirements.

CDC Section 501-2 – Amendment to public facility and service requirements to include the Bonny Slope West Transportation System Development Charge.

CDC Section 501-8 – Revise text to allow roadway alignments designated in the Transportation System Plan to be adjusted within a subject property.

CDC Section 502-1 – Revise Sidewalk Standards to be consistent with Section 501-2.

CDC Section 502-14 – Clarify exemptions from sidewalk construction requirements.


August 29, 2016 of 10

CDC Section 702-13 – Revise procedures for land use review of transportation improvements

to exempt construction of facilities intended to exclusively serve pedestrians and/or bicyclists.

List of Attachments The following attachments identified in this staff report are provided: Attachment A: Long Range Planning Issue Paper 2016-01: ‘Solutions for Addressing Walkway

Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area’ Attachment B: TriMet Southwest Service Enhancement Plan Attachment C: Staff responses to Planning Commission questions Attachment D: Draft Planning Commission Deliberations from August 3, 2016 Attachment E: Public comments received through August 30, 2016 S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2016 Ord\Ord814_TSP\StaffReports_PPTs\BOC\090616\814_BOC_SR_082916_Final.docx

May 9, 2016

LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUE PAPER NO. 2016-01 - REVISED

Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area

ATTACHMENT A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Issue ...................................................................................................................................... 3

II. Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................................ 3 III. Background ........................................................................................................................... 5

A. Definitions B. Existing Conditions C. Policy Framework D. Sidewalk Provision through Development E. Walkway Provision through Public Projects

IV. Analysis............................................................................................................................ ...29

A. Key Takeaways from Background Section B. Walkway Construction Cost C. Safety Analysis of Different Walkway Types

V. Recommendations……………………………………………………………………........32 VI. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..……..40 VII. Appendix A...………………………………………………………………………..……..41

ATTACHMENT A

Revision On February 2, 2016 an Issue Paper addressing solutions for walkway gaps in urban unincorporated Washington County (UUWC) was released. The initial paper has been revised to reflect recent direction on walkway gap funding. Staff recommends delaying new discussions about walkway financing until after the MSTIP 3e decision takes place in the fall of 2016. Recent Board discussions and direction that influence future decisions on walkway gap funding include MSTIP 3e and Gain Share. After finalizing decisions on MSTIP 3e in the fall of 2016, the Board may wish to examine, consider, and discuss other financial tools listed in “Appendix A.”

I. Issue Numerous residents, stakeholders and organizations1 in Washington County have identified the incomplete network of sidewalks and walkways in UUWC as a persistent problem that needs to be addressed in order to promote safe, livable communities. At the same time, members of the development community have requested process changes for determining public improvement requirements (including sidewalks). These requests were approved as part of the 2015 Work Program, Tier 1, Task 1.23 (New tools for eliminating sidewalk gaps). This Issue Paper examines existing conditions and policies related to sidewalks and walkways, reviews sidewalk/walkway implementation methods in the context of both development and public projects, and recommends several policy and procedural changes that would potentially result in more successful completion of sidewalks and walkways throughout UUWC. Walkway gaps on county roadways inside city jurisdictions were not considered as part of this paper. II. Summary of Recommendations To address walkway gaps in UUWC, staff proposes 11 recommendations for potential implementation or further consideration and scoping. These recommendations are divided into “Potential Administrative Changes” (those that can be implemented by staff) and “Potential Legislative Changes” (those that would require action by the Board of Commissioners and warrant a higher level of public involvement). Each of these recommendations is described in further detail in the Recommendations section starting on page 32 of this paper. Potential Administrative Changes: 1. Expand capabilities and usage of the Transportation Improvement Master List for

documenting, characterizing, mapping and monitoring walkway gaps and programmed projects.

1 This Issue Paper responds to requests received by the Department of Land Use & Transportation from the Washington County Committee for Citizen Involvement, unincorporated county residents Mary Manseau and Eric Squires, and Justin Wood representing the Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland.

ATTACHMENT A

2. Add walkway presence/absence information to the Integrated Road Inventory System and Asset Browser.

3. Focus walkway project development efforts on gaps identified in the following sources:

o Washington County Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project (“DOE project,” 2012)

o Aloha-Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan, Addendum C: Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (2014)

o School Access Improvement Study (2015) o Small Road Improvement Candidates List (ongoing) o External sources, including the TriMet Pedestrian Network Analysis, ODOT

Pedestrian/Bicycle Inventory, and the Metro Regional Active Transportation Plan o Future studies that identify and prioritize sidewalk gaps.

4. As part of future capital projects and facility permits, identify opportunities to strategically

and efficiently address walkway gaps on other roadways in the immediate vicinity.

5. Identify interim system completion targets for different roadway functional classes, or for different locational contexts (such as Pedestrian/Bicycle Districts or areas near schools).

6. Institute a more coordinated, intra-divisional effort to prioritize transportation projects (including walkway projects) and match them with appropriate internal and external funding sources, including a regularly-scheduled transportation project “super-committee.”

Potential Legislative Changes:

7. Replace or revise Resolution & Order 86-95 (Determining Traffic Safety Improvements

under the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance – Process Documentation) with a multimodal transportation development improvement process with guidance from the 2014 Multimodal Performance Measures and Standards report.

8. Clarify or revise conflicting Community Development Code (CDC) sections regarding the

circumstances in which public improvements are required.

9. Amend Article VII of the CDC to exempt from land use review walkway projects that would require additional right-of-way but would otherwise meet the requirements of CDC Section 702-4 (Public Transportation Facilities – Exempt Projects).

10. Take limited actions to address improvement needs on non-county public roadways in UUWC.

11. Examine, consider, and discuss other financial tools listed in “Appendix A”. These can come back to the Board as separate work sessions discussion.

ATTACHMENT A

III. Background In 2005, the Long Range Planning Section of the Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation (LUT) completed Issue Paper No. 9, which proposed potential remedies to the fragmented walkway system in UUWC. Recommended solutions included modifying Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) and Local Improvement District (LID) policies and procedures to fund walkway needs identified in the Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan. It also suggested investigating the ability to obtain off-site sidewalks in conjunction with new development through the Transportation Funding Plan (a precursor effort to the Transportation Development Tax). This Issue Paper updates and builds upon the 2005 paper. The following Background section defines key terms, summarizes existing conditions and policies and describes how sidewalks and walkways are provided through land development and public projects. The subsequent Analysis section synthesizes this information to inform the Recommendation section. A. Definitions

This Issue Paper was originally defined in terms of “sidewalk gaps,” which was subsequently revised to “walkway gaps.” Sidewalk is defined in CDC Section 502-2.2 (Sidewalk Standards – Definitions) as “a concrete sidewalk which meets adopted design standards and is used primarily by pedestrians as a means of travel.” A more inclusive term is “walkway,” since not all facilities intended for walking along a roadway are built of concrete and built to standard. For example, some walkways are made of asphalt, and some concrete sidewalks are built directly next to the curb (contrary to adopted design standards, but allowed under certain circumstances). Furthermore, solving the problem of sidewalks gaps in UUWC will require looking at a variety of walkway solutions, some of which will not meet the county’s strict definition of a sidewalk. This Issue Paper uses the terms sidewalk and walkway intentionally and not interchangeably. In this paper, the definition of sidewalk is expanded to include curbside sidewalks, which do not meet adopted design standards but are otherwise made of concrete and installed with the approval of the County Engineer. The definition of walkway in this paper focuses on all types of facilities intended for walking along a roadway, but does not include off-street facilities such as trails and accessways; nor does it include facilities that help people cross roadways, such as crosswalks or mid-block crossings. Key definitions for the purposes of this Issue Paper are as follows: Curbside sidewalk: A sidewalk that is built directly adjacent to the curb of a roadway, typically at the same grade as the top of the curb (also “curb-tight sidewalk”). Enhanced sidewalk: A sidewalk that contains more features and/or has larger dimensions than the county’s standard sidewalk. Examples of additional features include pedestrian-scale lighting, landscaping, decorative paving techniques, benches and public art.

ATTACHMENT A

Multi-use path: A paved pathway that accommodates people walking, running, using mobility devices, riding bicycles, using skateboards and performing other human-powered movement. Multi-use paths can be located in off-roadway locations as well as parallel and adjacent to roadways. In the latter case, the multi-use path often functions as both a walkway and a bikeway. Pedestrian facility: Any constructed improvement intended to facilitate the movement of people walking or using mobility devices. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, walkways, accessways, multi-use paths, trails, crosswalks, mid-block crossings, walk signals, stairways and elevators. Separated asphalt path: A walkway constructed of asphalt located parallel to a roadway and separated from the roadway by grass, landscaping, gravel, and/or a drainage ditch. Separated sidewalk: A sidewalk that is separated horizontally from the roadway by trees, grass, landscaping and/or other materials. Sidewalk: A walkway constructed of concrete located alongside a roadway and intended for people walking or using mobility devices. Walkway: A constructed linear space located alongside a roadway and intended for people walking or using mobility devices. Walkways include separated sidewalks, curbside sidewalks, separated asphalt paths and wide-shoulder walkways (also “pedestrian path”). Wide-shoulder walkway: A walkway located adjacent to and at the same grade as the roadway, typically constructed of asphalt, and separated from vehicular traffic by profile striping.

Figure 1 on the following page illustrates six common walkway typologies in UUWC.

ATTACHMENT A

Figure 1: Common Walkway Typologies in Urban Unincorporated Washington County

No walkway – SW Rosa Rd

Wide-shoulder walkway – SW Johnson St

Separated asphalt path – SW 170th Ave

Curbside sidewalk – NW 185th Ave

Separated sidewalk – NW Evergreen Parkway

Enhanced sidewalk – NW Cornell Rd

ATTACHMENT A

B. Existing Conditions

UUWC is home to over 200,000 people and would be the second largest city in Oregon if it incorporated. Provision of urban services such as sidewalks has been a particular policy challenge as the area has changed incrementally over 70 years from a largely rural land base to a collection of suburban communities. The presence or absence of sidewalks in UUWC is largely a function of when a particular location developed with suburban/urban land uses and densities. Sidewalks were not required as a condition of development approval until the adoption of the 1983 urban Community Development Code.2 In the 50 years prior to that, it was not common practice for developers to voluntarily build sidewalks. Sidewalks were common in urban communities built before World War II, but UUWC contains very few communities of this vintage – most are located within incorporated cities (downtown Hillsboro, for example). LUT performed an inventory of sidewalks, walkways and bike lanes along Principal Arterials, Arterials and Collectors (“major roadways”) in 2012 as part of the Washington County Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project funded by a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) grant. This inventory, known as the DOE project, was updated and quality-checked in 2014 as part of the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) update. The inventory found that, as of 2014, 56% of major roadways in urban Washington County (including county and state facilities in unincorporated and incorporated areas) have sidewalks on both sides of the street, while 19% of these streets have no walkways at all. The remainder, 25%, has sidewalks on one side of the street, or has non-standard paved walkways on one or both sides of the street. Figure 2 provides a map of walkway coverage along major roadways in urban Washington County. Sidewalk coverage statistics for all roadway functional classes are not available for the entirety of UUWC. However, a sidewalk inventory of all roadways in Aloha-Reedville was performed as part of the 2014 Aloha-Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan. In the nine-square-mile Aloha-Reedville study area, 66% of roadsides have sidewalks or walkways, leaving 34% of roadsides without walkways. Similar conditions are found in other mixed-era neighborhoods in UUWC such as Metzger, Garden Home and Cedar Mill. Newer areas, such as Bethany, tend to have more complete (but not total) sidewalk coverage. In practice, walkways in UUWC are provided through a variety of means. As an example, Figure 3 demonstrates how walkways along a segment of SW Kinnaman Road in Aloha have been or will be provided by both the private sector (through development) and the public sector (through Washington County capital projects, Minor Betterment projects, and Urban Road Maintenance District safety projects). Figure 3 also indicates the type of walkways that have been provided along this stretch of Kinnaman, including interim wide-shoulder walkways, curbside sidewalks and county-standard separated sidewalks.

2 Source: Tom Harry, Senior Planner, Current Planning section.

ATTACHMENT A

AÚ

AÚ

?¹

?¹

?¹

!̀

!̀

Ig

?¡

?¡

AÜ

AÜ

?}

?}

5TH A

VEMIN

TER B RIDG

ERD

185T

H AVE10TH

AVE

BULL MOUNTAIN RD

EVERGREEN PKWY

MAIN ST

WALKER RD

HORNECKER RD

BARNES R D

72ND

AVE

ROSHA K RD

CORN

ELIUS

PASS RD

BONITA RD

GALES

CREEK RD

BASELINE RD

FARMINGTON RD

PACIFIC AVE

DENNEY RD

ALLEN BLVD

DAVIE

S RD

PARK WAY

CIPOL E RD

4TH A

VE

CORNELL RD

PACI

FICHW

Y

BEAVERTON HILLSDALE HWY6TH STCANYON RD

SCHOLLS F ERRY RD

GRAHA

MSFE

RRY R

D

EDY RD

BARR OWS RD

THATCHERRD

DAVIS RD

JOHNSON ST

BETH

ANY

BLVD

DURHAM RD

SPRINGVILLE RD

IMLA

Y AV

EBEEF BEND RD

LOIS ST

170T

HAV

E

BROO

KWOOD

PKWY

KEMMER RD

HERMAN RD

WALNUT STOAK ST

TUALATIN VALLEY HWY

BROOKW

OODAVE

DAVIS RD

BRONSON RD

SAGERT ST

ELLIGSEN RD

BALD PEAK RD

QUATAMA RD

80TH

AVE

WALNUT ST

198T

H AVE

19TH AVE

DIVISION ST

PINE ST

32ND

AVE

MAIN

ST

EVER GREEN RD

GRANT STCORN

ELIU

SSC

HEFFL

INRD

WEIR RD

26TH

AVE

AVERY ST

173R

D AVE

OAKS

T

ROCK RD

65TH

AVE

ROSA RD

KAISERRD

TUALATIN RD

WEST UNION RD

SUNRISE LN

SPRINGHILL

RD

BANY RD

ROOD

BRIDG

ERD

LAIDLAW RD

SUNSET BLVD

OAK ST

RIGERT RD

BONNIELN

PATTON VALLEY R D

THO MPSON RD

LEAHY RD

OAK ST

TUALATIN SHERWOOD RD

G ERMANTO WN RD

SCHOLLS SHERWOOD RD

KINNAMAN RD

ROSEDAL E RD

DIXON MILL RD

TONQUINRD

SC OG GINS VALLEY RD

ELM

ST

25THAVE

150T

H AVE

TE TONAVE

TONGUE LN

D AVID HILL RD

WREN RDROCK

CREEKBLV DVERBOORT RD

RIT CHEY RD

LAUREL RD

TILEFLATRD

ZIONCHURCH RD

LAURELWOODRD

MEEK RD

GORD

ON R

D

HILLSIDE RD

BURKHALTER RD

GASTON RD

CENT

URY

BLVD

EL SNER

RD

PURD IN RD

KEMPER RD

1ST A

VE

LOMBARDAV E

153RDDR

SUSB

AUER

RD

HALL

BLVD

MURR

AY B

LVD

GAA R DE ST

OLESON RD

ROY R

OGER

S RD

CEDA

RHILLS BL

VD

JACK

SON

SCHO

OLRD

ELWE

R TRD

RIVER RDHILL

SBOR

OHW

Y

HELV

ETIA

RD

BOON

ESFE

RRY

RD

BST

GLEN

COE

RD

209T

H AVE

121S

TAVE

EST

158 T

HAV

E

UNGER RD

FERN HILLRD

15TH

AVE

231S

TAV

E

ST RINGTOWN RD

229THAVE

155THAVE

NIMBU

SAV

E

CLAR

KHI

LLRD

SALT

ZMAN

RD

MARTIN

RD

JOHNSON SCHOO L RD

CHAPMAN RD

GOLF

COURSERD

KERK

MAN

RD

ROY RD

CASCADE AVE

SEIFF

ERT R

D

\\Emc

gis\na

s\GISD

ATA\W

orkgro

ups\G

ISPlan

ning\J

oe\S

teveZ

ig\20

15\TS

P_Us

erGuid

e_11

x17_

Sidew

alks.m

xd

This product is for informational purposes and may not have been preparedfor, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated.

Department of Land Use and TransportationPlanning and Development Services Division

1 inch represents 10,000 feet¯

0 21

Miles

Existing Both SidesExisting One SideSubstandard Both SidesSubstandard One SideNo SidewalksOther RoadsUrban AreaCounty

Figure 2:Arterial/CollectorSidewalk Inventory

ATTACHMENT A

!!!!

!!!!

!

!!!!

!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!

!

!!!!

!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

CHRIS ST

YEAGER LN

MEADOWBROOK

WAY

SELLWOOD LN

179T

H AVE

174T

H TE

R

177T

H AV

E

FARMINGTON RD

NOVATO LN

DIVISION ST

KINNAMAN RD

KANDREA CT

ACE T

ER

BUTTERNUT ST

DELINE ST

PA R SPL

ROBERT LN

DIVISION ST

184T

H AVE

WINONA LN

MADELINE ST

182N

D AVE

WASHINGTON CT

184T

H AVE

184T

H AVE

JAYLEE ST

182NDAV

EWASHINGTON DR

185T

H AVE

173R

D AVE

173R

D AVE

183R

DAV

E

180T

H AVE

182N

D AVE

183R

D AVE

186T

H PL

GOLDEN

GAT E

WAY

\\Emc

gis\na

s\GISD

ATA\W

orkgro

ups\G

ISPlan

ning\J

oe\S

teveZ

ig\20

15\K

innim

an_s

idewa

lks_1

1x17

_L1_

Fig3.m

xd

This product is for informational purposes and may not have been preparedfor, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated.

Department of Land Use and TransportationPlanning and Development Services Division

1 inch represents 300 feet¯

Pedestrian Facility Provision History

0 430215

Feet

Kinnaman Rd

Improvement TypeSeparatedSidewalkCurb-tightSidewalk

!!!!!!!Wide ShoulderWalkwayTax Lots

Figure 3

Funding SourcePrivately Funded:RedevelopmentPublicallyFunded: CapitalProjectPublically Funded:Minor BettermentPublically Funded:Urban RoadMaintenance District

ATTACHMENT A

C. Policy Framework

County policies call for sidewalks to be provided along roads in UUWC, pursuant to state and regional requirements. Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012 (the “Transportation Planning Rule”), in its description of the required transportation components of land use and subdivision regulations, states in section 660-012-0045 that, “Sidewalks shall be required along Arterials, Collectors and most Local Streets in urban areas, except that sidewalks are not required along controlled access roadways, such as freeways.” The Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan restates this requirement in section 3.08.130, requiring transportation system plans to include “Provision for sidewalks along Arterials, Collectors and most Local Streets, except that sidewalks are not required along controlled roadways, such as freeways.” Overarching county pedestrian policies are consistent with state and regional requirements and are found in the Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan and the Washington County Transportation System Plan, described below. Walkway implementation mechanisms are discussed in sections ‘D’ and ‘E’ of this paper.

Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan (CFP) CFP Policy 14 – Managing Growth – categorizes urban facilities and services into essential, critical and desirable services:3 o Critical facilities and services include public water, public sewer, fire protection,

drainage, and access on Local and Neighborhood Route roads. An inability to provide an adequate level of critical services in conjunction with a proposed development will result in the denial of a development application.

o Essential facilities and services include schools, Arterial (including State highways) and

Collector roads, transit improvements (such as bus shelters and turnouts, etc.), police protection, street lighting, regional trails and on-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the public right-of-way. Failure to ensure the availability of an adequate level of all essential services within five years from occupancy may result in the denial of a development application.

o Desirable facilities and services include public transportation service, parks, community

trails, traffic calming devices, mid-block crossings and off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities. These are facilities and services that may be expected in a reasonable timeframe from the occupancy of a development. A development application may be conditioned to facilitate desirable facilities and services based upon specific findings.

3 These descriptions incorporate changes made by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 799, which became effective November 27, 2015.

ATTACHMENT A

Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) Overarching county polices related to pedestrian infrastructure are included under TSP Goal 8: Active Transportation.4 Goal 8 directs county transportation providers to “create a built environment that encourages safe, comfortable and convenient active transportation options that are viable for all users.” Supporting text adds that, “active transportation modes are essential components of the overall transportation system, meeting a variety of societal, environmental and economic goals,” including environmental stewardship and energy sustainability, congestion alleviation, health, safety, efficient travel, cost savings and social equity, and attractive, efficient urban form. More specific walkway-related strategies are included under TSP Objective 8.2: 5

Objective 8.2 Provide a pedestrian network that is safe, comfortable and convenient for people of all ages and abilities.

Strategy 8.2.1 Prioritize pedestrian projects that are technically and financially feasible and that also improve connectivity, fill gaps, and/or provide safe routes to schools, community facilities, commercial areas, transit stops, or essential destinations. Strategy 8.2.2 Prioritize pedestrian projects based on need; factors to consider may include: safety, density (residential and employment), access to essential destinations and transit, and environmental justice factors, among others. Strategy 8.2.3 Inside the Urban Growth Boundary, require that sidewalks are constructed along new or improved streets and along street frontages of new developments. Strategy 8.2.4 Facilitate safe, convenient and comfortable pedestrian facilities through the provision of pedestrian scale amenities as deemed appropriate and in compliance with applicable regulations.

The TSP Goals, Objectives and Strategies are further refined in the TSP Modal Elements.6 The TSP Pedestrian Element establishes that all roadways in the urban area (with the exception of freeways) are pedestrian routes, and delineates particular roadway segments and areas where enhanced pedestrian features are desired because of land use context and/or transit service. The Pedestrian Element also identifies county-adopted Regional and Community Trails. Pedestrian Element designations that have a particular bearing on walkway provision and features include Pedestrian Parkway, Streetscape Overlay, and Pedestrian/Bicycle District. Definitions (edited for brevity) and examples are as follows: o Pedestrian Parkway: A major urban thoroughfare (typically an Arterial with transit

service) that has the potential for significant pedestrian activity. Enhanced pedestrian facilities are encouraged to facilitate a safe, direct, efficient, comfortable walking

4 The TSP Goals, Objectives and Strategies were adopted by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 in 2013. 5 Objective 8.2 also includes strategies 8.2.5 and 8.2.6, which pertain to enhanced pedestrian crossings and rural pedestrian activity areas, respectively. 6 The TSP Modal Elements were adopted by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 in 2014.

ATTACHMENT A

environment along and across these roadways, including enhanced pedestrian crossings and wide sidewalks. Example: 185th Avenue between Springville Road and Farmington Road.

o Streetscape Overlay: A segment of urban roadway (typically within a Town Center, Regional Center or Station Community) in which enhanced pedestrian features, expanded pedestrian facility dimensions and place-making amenities are encouraged to facilitate a comfortable and attractive walking environment and to leverage community and economic development. Example: Cornell Road between 143rd Avenue and 119th Avenue.

o Pedestrian/Bicycle District: An area where high use by pedestrians and cyclists is either observed or intended. Pedestrian-oriented design of streets, public spaces and land uses are generally required in these areas to provide a safe, direct, efficient, comfortable and attractive walking environment. Example: Elmonica Station Community on 170th Avenue.

In addition, the TSP Roadway Element includes Special Area Street designations in the Cedar Mill, Sunset Station, Merlo, Elmonica, Willow Creek and Raleigh Hills areas. These include existing or proposed Special Area Collectors, Special Area Neighborhood Routes, Special Area Local Streets and Special Area Commercial Streets. Special Area Street design standards typically include wider sidewalks, narrower paved widths and on-street parking. The sidewalks on Special Area Streets typically include individual trees in tree grates rather than continuous planter strips. Washington County Community Plans Some Community Plans require wider-than-standard sidewalks or prioritize certain areas for pedestrian network completion: o Cedar Hills – Cedar Mill Community Plan requires arterials in areas with Transit-

Oriented plan designations are required to have 12-foot wide sidewalks. This provision is detailed in the CDC and described in the next section.

o Sunset West Community Plan identifies pedestrian connectivity areas. The appropriate

types of pedestrian improvements within these areas are sidewalks along streets, accessways, off-street trails, off-street pathways, or a combination of these improvements.

o Metzger-Progress Community Plan requires all new subdivisions, attached unit

residential developments, and commercial developments to provide pedestrian pathways that allow public access through, or along, the development and connect with adjacent developments and/or shopping areas, schools, public transit, parks and recreation sites.

ATTACHMENT A

o Chapter 2: North Bethany Subarea Plan of the Bethany Community Plan contains provisions for sidewalk and interim pedestrian connections as identified in the CDC below.

D. Sidewalk Provision through Development

Many sidewalks in UUWC are provided by land development activity. Implementation documents that regulate development-provided sidewalks in UUWC include the CDC, Road Design & Construction Standards, Resolution & Order 86-95, and the Transportation Development Tax code. Pertinent provisions from these documents are described below along with legal nexus/proportionality considerations. Washington County Community Development Code (CDC) Sidewalks are one of several facilities regulated by CDC Section 501-2 (Application of the Public Facility and Service Standards Inside a UGB). Consistent with CFP Policy 14, Managing Growth, referenced earlier, “on-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the public right-of-way” are designated as an essential service and “off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities” are designated as a desirable service (CDC Section 501-7.1). Additional regulations specific to sidewalks are included in CDC Section 502. Below, in question/answer format, are several important sidewalk-related provisions in the CDC. o What type/scale of development is required to provide sidewalks? Development subject to the Public Facility and Service Standards includes all land divisions, property line adjustments, new construction of structures and expansion of existing structures, with some exceptions. The most notable exception is for “construction of a single (one [1] only) detached dwelling unit or duplex on an approved duplex lot…” (CDC Section 501-2.2). However, CDC Section 502-1.4 states:

Sidewalks shall be required to be constructed prior to occupancy for the following development in the unincorporated areas of Washington County within an Urban Growth Boundary: A. All development that is subject to the Public Facility and Service Standards as required by

Section 501-2, except for: (1) Private streets for four (4) or fewer dwelling units pursuant to Section 409-3.3 A. (1), (2),

and (4 - 7); and

ATTACHMENT A

(2) Residential development that meets the exemption criteria in Section 502-14; or B. One (1) detached dwelling unit or one (1) duplex on a legally created lot or parcel when:

(1) The lot or parcel has two hundred fifty (250) feet or less of street frontage; and (2) A sidewalk or temporary sidewalk exists, or is required to be constructed as part of a

development approval, on an adjacent lot or parcel with the same street frontage. While CDC Sections 501-2.2 and 502-1.4 may appear to be at odds, Current Planning staff have developed an administrative interpretation to exempt sidewalk requirements for single family detached homes on lots of record. This is based on the premise that the home to be constructed on the lot of record would not generate trips over and above what was already permitted on the site, and therefore public improvements would not be proportional to the development. However, on a newly created single family lot created by a partition, a sidewalk may be required if the frontage is less than 250 feet and an adjacent sidewalk exists, per CDC Section 502-1.4. Other exemptions from building sidewalks are available in CDC Section 502-14 (Exemption From The Sidewalk and Temporary Sidewalk Construction Requirements), including situations where there are topographic/environmental constraints and on Non-Arterial/Collector streets where there are no sidewalks and no divisible properties in the surrounding area. Nevertheless, CDC Section 502-14 further states that sidewalks may be required if it would benefit access to transit or pedestrian-oriented land uses, if there is a safety need due to high vehicle speeds or volumes, or if it is in a Transit-Oriented or Pedestrian District.

o What are the design standards for required sidewalks? CDC Section 502-3.1 states that sidewalks shall be built in accordance with adopted county standards. The current county sidewalk standard, in effect since 2011, is a five-foot concrete walkway separated from the curb by a minimum four-foot wide planter strip.7 The curb is typically six inches wide, resulting in a 9½-foot minimum pedestrian corridor, not including any space outside the sidewalk for utilities, topographic features or sound walls. Sidewalk design modifications may be approved by the County Engineer. One common modification is to build a curbside sidewalk that omits the planter strip. Typical reasons for pursuing curbside sidewalks include limited right-of-way, topographic constraints, and/or a determination that other features of the roadway are considered to be more important for overall safety, such as a right turn lane. Curbside sidewalks have been built in many locations in UUWC, both by development activity and by county projects.

7 The Washington County Road Design & Construction Standards were adopted by Ordinance 738 in 2011.

ATTACHMENT A

While both separated and curbside sidewalks provide safe walkway facilities, excluding the planter strip can have a negative effect on the perceived safety and comfort of the sidewalk, particularly along busier roadways. Insufficient data is available to determine whether separated sidewalks result in fewer pedestrian/vehicle collisions compared to curbside sidewalks. However, the additional horizontal separation (“shy distance”) and provision of trees and light poles may reduce the potential of pedestrians being struck by vehicles departing the roadway. Conversely, trees and other objects within the planter strip can create visibility problems if these features are not properly designed and maintained. In other circumstances, the county requires a sidewalk to be built along a development frontage at its ultimate location without completing other elements of the half-street. Typically this leaves an open ditch between the sidewalk and the roadway, and the roadway typically remains without a bike lane and without standard pavement width and base. The intent in these circumstances is to provide complete roadway, stormwater and bicycle facilities through a future capital project.

The CDC includes provisions for wider sidewalks in certain areas including the following:

• Eight-foot sidewalks are required along certain state highways. CDC Section 502-13.3 states, “Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with the adopted County Road Standards, except an eight-foot width shall be required along Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway, Canyon Road and Tualatin Valley Highway.” In practice, sidewalks built to this standard have been built curb-tight with no planter strip, which conflicts with current county Road Design & Construction Standards. This is because the eight-foot sidewalk requirement on certain state highways predates the county requirement for planter strips. Application of both standards would theoretically yield a 12-foot pedestrian corridor including an eight-foot sidewalk and four-foot planter strip.

• Twelve-foot sidewalks are required along certain streets within Transit-Oriented plan

designations indicated in the Community Plans. CDC Section 431-5.1 B (4) states:

Minimum sidewalk widths in Transit Oriented Districts shall be the widest identified by the Washington County Road Design and Construction Standards for the adjacent Special Area Street (as shown in the Transportation System Plan), except for Special Area Commercial Streets. Special Area Commercial Streets shall have sidewalks that are a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width. On Arterials within or adjacent to Transit Oriented Districts and which are designated as ‘Streetscape Overlay’ on the Pedestrian System Map in the Transportation System Plan, the minimum sidewalk width shall be twelve (12) feet.

An example of an applicable segment where 12-foot sidewalks are required is NW Cornell Road in the Cedar Mill Town Center.

• Sidewalks along designated Special Area Commercial Streets in the Peterkort Station

Area are required to be 15 feet wide (CDC Section 431-12.3 B (4)).

ATTACHMENT A

• North Bethany sidewalks are required to meet standards identified in CDC Section 502 (Sidewalk Standards) per CDC 501-10.1 G. Furthermore, a direct, safe and continuous pedestrian connection is required for pedestrian-oriented uses (schools, parks, recreation centers, commercial uses, and nearest transit stops). Interim pedestrian connections are required based on specific standards (CDC Section 501-10.2 F).

o At what stage of development are sidewalks actually constructed? Subdivision public improvements are typically phased – usually the first phase is the roadways and the final phase is the sidewalks. Sidewalk completion is not required until homes or other buildings have been constructed on the lots. Small subdivisions typically do not have a major time lag in providing complete sidewalks. However, in large subdivisions (e.g., 50 or more homes), new residents in the first phase of the subdivision may experience sidewalk gaps in their community for many months if not years. During the economic recession of the late 2000s, many public improvements associated with subdivisions were left incomplete, perpetuating gaps in the walkway system. One way of potentially mitigating this situation in the future is to have the developer build temporary asphalt walkways in key locations as an interim solution. Washington County Road Design & Construction Standards

The current Washington County Road Design & Construction Standards were adopted by Ordinance No. 738 in 2011. As referenced earlier, the county sidewalk standard for urban roadways is a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk set back four feet from the back of curb (section 340.060 and standard drawing 2110), or as otherwise specified in the county Comprehensive Plan. Grades and cross-slopes of sidewalks and crosswalks must meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Curbside sidewalks – an exception to the County Road Design & Construction Standards – are allowed as determined and approved by the County Engineer. In cases of land development, this design exception is included in the development’s Notice of Decision. Curbside sidewalks have been constructed in many circumstances along county roads, by development and as part of county capital projects. These non-standard sidewalks are often the result of difficult trade-offs between design optimization, available right-of-way and the proportionality of exactions from development. The County Road Design & Construction Standards are anticipated to be updated in 2016 to reflect new pedestrian/bicycle designations and right-of-way requirements added to the TSP in 2014 and 2015, including Streetscape Overlays.

ATTACHMENT A

Washington County Resolution & Order 86-95 Resolution & Order (R&O) 86-95 (Determining Traffic Safety Improvements under the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance – Process Documentation) was adopted by the Board of Commissioners in 1986. It establishes the process and criteria by which developments are required to make safety improvements to the roadway system. Appendix B to the R&O, which describes the criteria, states that:

Sidewalks will be installed along the sites [sic] frontage, placed at ultimate location and grade, unless an exception is approved in accordance with the standard of the Community Development Code (CDC) Section 501-5.4.

In cases where a hazard is predicted, Appendix B states that:

Off-site sidewalks which are needed to allow safe pedestrian travel from the development to an existing network of sidewalks or to an area of heavy pedestrian draw, such as a neighborhood commercial development, will be required.

Off-site sidewalks have been particularly difficult to implement because negotiation with a third party is usually required. If additional right-of-way is needed to construct the off-site sidewalk, the adjacent property owner may or may not be willing to sell it. In addition, the county does not have a standard procedure for measuring, predicting, setting thresholds or delineating impact areas for off-site pedestrian, bicycle or transit demand. R&O 86-95 establishes only a motor vehicle impact threshold, defined as locations where site-generated traffic equals or exceeds 10% of existing traffic. While the core functions of R&O 86-85 are still effective, staff believes an updated framework is needed to better account for multiple transportation modes during development review. The county undertook a Multimodal Performance Measures and Standards project in 2013-2014 (funded by an Oregon Transportation and Growth Management grant) that explored potential tools and methods that could be incorporated into such an update. Transportation Development Tax (TDT) Credit The TDT is the countywide system development charge for transportation capacity improvements. Development applicants may receive credit against their TDT payment obligations for constructing eligible improvements that were conditions of development approval.8 TDT credit eligibility for roadway improvements applies only to Arterials and Collectors, which make up about 30% of urban roads maintained by Washington County. Sidewalks are eligible for TDT credit in very limited circumstances because they typically do not provide additional capacity beyond what a Local Street would provide. Variables that

8 Washington County Code 3.17 regulates the Transportation Development Tax. TDT credit regulations are included in section 3.17.070.

ATTACHMENT A

affect credit eligibility for sidewalks include whether it is built larger or the same as the Local Street standard, whether it is contiguous or non-contiguous to the development site, and whether the roadway is or is not included in the adopted TDT Capital Project List. Table 1 below describes credit eligibility in these contexts.

Table 1: Transportation Development Tax Credit Eligibility of Sidewalks On the TDT Project List

Not on the TDT Project List

On or contiguous to the developing property • Built to local street standard

Sidewalk is not eligible

Sidewalk is not eligible

• Built larger than local street standard

Portion of sidewalk beyond local street standard is 100% eligible

Portion of sidewalk beyond local street standard is 75% eligible on arterials, 50% eligible on Collectors

• Right-of-way (ROW) is dedicated

ROW is 100% eligible based on assessed market land value in county tax records

ROW is not eligible

Neither on nor contiguous to the developing property • Built to local street standard

Sidewalk is 100% eligible Sidewalk is 75% eligible on

Arterials, 50% eligible on Collectors

• Built larger than local street standard

Sidewalk is 100% eligible Sidewalk is 75% eligible on arterials, 50% eligible on Collectors

• Right-of-way is dedicated ROW is 100% eligible based on reasonable market value purchased from a third party

ROW is 100% eligible based on reasonable market value purchased from a third party

Under no circumstances are sidewalks along Neighborhood Routes or Local Streets eligible for TDT credit. However, several Neighborhood Routes in the North Bethany subarea are eligible for North Bethany Transportation System Development Charge (NBTSDC) credit. The NBTSDC is a separate charge that is regulated by similar, but not identical, code language as the TDT. Legal Considerations Sidewalks and other public improvements required of development are subject to the legal concepts of nexus and proportionality as established through case law in the United States. Several court cases have created a framework in which LUT must carefully consider how the private cost of frontage improvements may or may not be proportional to the scale and

ATTACHMENT A

impact of development. With no objective criteria or standards available to measure proportionality, the county has had to rely on informal back-and-forth negotiations with development applicants as well as more formal proceedings and decisions by Hearings Officers. If disagreement persists, the applicant or the review authority may appeal to the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), followed by the Oregon Court of Appeals, Oregon Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court. It is worth noting that the nation’s most significant legal test of proportionality – Dolan v. City of Tigard – occurred in Washington County. This and two other U.S. Supreme Court cases have had a profound impact on development requirements: o In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987), the Court decided that there was

not a sufficient nexus for the Coastal Commission to require a public easement across beachfront property as a condition for rebuilding a house, and it was therefore an unconstitutional taking. As a result of the case, review authorities must make a clear connection – nexus – between the required condition and the impact of the development.

o In Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), the Court ruled that there must be “rough

proportionality” between a required land dedication and the development’s impact. In this case, the requirement to dedicate land to the city for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle trail was ruled to be disproportionate to the impact of expanding an existing plumbing/electric supply store.

o In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013), the Court ruled that the Nollan/Dolan tests of nexus and proportionality apply in situations where a permit is denied, and they apply in cases where money is demanded instead of improvements or land. The case effectively expanded the reach of nexus/ proportionality considerations, including fee-in-lieu situations.

On a relatively frequent and increasing basis, development applicants in UUWC have been appealing land use decisions because they feel sidewalk and other public improvements required by the county are too onerous and disproportionate to the scale of development. Hearings Officers have often sided with the applicant, resulting in no sidewalks. Recent examples include the following: o SW 85th Avenue Partition (Case File 14-365-P Appeal) – The Hearings Officer (H.O.)

determined that staff had not demonstrated that the required improvements (a half-street with sidewalk) were related in nature or roughly proportional to the impact of the partition. The H.O. also determined that sidewalks should not be required due to the lack of sidewalks in the vicinity of the site and because the partition itself would not generate any pedestrian traffic to require the improvement.

o Lithia Mini Auto Dealership Expansion (Case File 14-289-D(C)-Appeals) – The H.O.

determined that the cost of the required improvement (widening the roadway to accommodate a bike lane, relocating the sidewalk and dedicating the appropriate right-of-

ATTACHMENT A

way along SW Canyon Road) was disproportionate to the scale of the proposed development.

o Chestnut Corner Subdivision (Case File 14-460-S Appeal) – The H.O. determined that the required improvements (half-streets with sidewalk along two intersecting streets) were not appropriate due to the limited impact of the proposed subdivision. The applicant proposed to replace four pre-existing dwelling units with four new units, theoretically resulting in no new transportation impacts. The H.O. ultimately required temporary, at-grade sidewalks along the site’s two street frontages, unless one or both temporary sidewalks trigger Clean Water Services requirements to construct stormwater facilities.

In addition, “minimum density” developments tend not to be required to make sidewalk improvements due to proportionality. Development applications that do not meet minimum density requirements may be approved if future development plans are submitted with the applications. A future development plan must demonstrate how the entire site can be ultimately developed consistent with the minimum density and other applicable standards of the CDC. For example, a two lot partition that may ultimately accommodate additional, denser development would most likely not be required to make sidewalk improvements due to the disproportionate cost relative to the development action.

Notwithstanding the cases above, LUT has been successful in requiring sidewalks on a large majority of development applications. Looking specifically at the 20 urban partition9 casefiles that were marked final or approved in calendar year 2014: o Seven casefiles resulted in sidewalk construction on all frontages (totaling nearly 1,100

lineal feet);

o Nine casefiles had pre-existing sidewalks on the frontages (These were typically partitions within recent subdivisions or serial partitions10 );

o One casefile resulted in 90 feet of sidewalk constructed and 158 feet of sidewalk

exempted due to a provision in CDC Section 502-14 (Exemption From The Sidewalk and Temporary Sidewalk Construction Requirements);

o One casefile resulted in a Hearings Officer decision to remove a requirement to build 100

feet of sidewalk; and

o Two casefiles were not included in this analysis because the partition was a small part of a larger development.

9 A partition is defined in the Oregon Revised Statutes (92.010) as a land division that creates no more than three parcels. 10 A serial partition is when a de facto subdivision is created through multiple, adjacent partitions.

ATTACHMENT A

Development Industry Perspectives Most developers are willing partners in constructing public improvements within and along their development sites. In some cases, however, developers find the county’s public improvement requirements to be burdensome. As an example, in 2014 a representative of the Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBA) contacted county staff to raise a proportionality issue with the SW 85th Avenue partition described above, in which the required improvements exceeded the value of the lot. During this contact, the HBA representative requested process improvements for determining public facility requirements, mentioning the City of Portland as an example. The HBA representative described a city process in which developers can learn of and contest public improvement requirements prior to formal submittal and for a small fee. The HBA representative stated that this process provides the opportunity to reconsider a development project before making significant investments including land use fees. LUT staff confirmed with Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) staff that there is an Early Assistance for Public Works program that allows applicants to submit development proposals and receive an assessment of what public improvements would be required, for a $150 fee. However, this program is limited to developments of one or two single family homes and does not apply to developments that necessitate land use review (e.g., partitions and subdivisions). For eligible participants that are not satisfied with the proposed requirements, two levels of appeals are available, each with a $250 fee. The first appeal is the Alternative Review process which allows applicants to propose alternatives to a Public Works Alternative Review Committee. The second appeal is to a Public Works Appeal Panel consisting of residents and other volunteers. After exhausting these options, applicants can either reconsider the project or proceed to formal submittal of the land use application (which includes appeal opportunities similar to those in Washington County). LUT does not have a program comparable to Portland’s Early Assistance for Public Works program, but it does offer two processes that provide early notification of public facility requirements: the Pre-Application Conference (“pre-app”) and the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). As of July 2015, fees for pre-apps and TISs are $268 and $400, respectively. The pre-app is intended to provide important, multi-faceted information about developing a property, including the plan designation, identification of any natural resources or special areas of consideration, and identification of all applicable CDC sections that require attention – including public facility requirements. Pre-apps are required for most Type II and Type III land use applications, though waivers are available. Pre-apps for Type I applications are voluntary. A TIS is more detailed and provides development applicants with a preliminary, site-specific list of applicable county transportation improvement requirements. A TIS is mandatory for all development generating 40 or more average daily vehicle trips, including residential developments with four or more dwelling units. The TIS must be completed and submitted as part of the land development application.

ATTACHMENT A

Staff believes that the pre-app and TIS processes, combined with informal phone and e-mail communication between staff and applicants, provide developers with adequate, early information on public facility requirements. In addition, LUT’s ability to address transportation-specific requirements prior to plan submittal has improved with the hiring of a Transportation Planner within the Current Planning section.

E. Walkway Provision through Public Projects

LUT has been proactively addressing walkway gaps in UUWC by investing public funds, from large capital projects that rebuild entire roadways for all modes of travel, to smaller infill projects that construct interim improvements. The sections below describe funding sources available for walkway projects and methods used to prioritize projects and measure progress toward completing the walkway network.

Funding Sources Washington County has a number of different funding sources available to address walkway gaps. These are described below.

o Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) – Washington

County’s property tax-funded MSTIP program addresses multimodal safety and capacity issues on the System of Countywide Interest, an agreed-upon system of Arterial and limited Collector roadways11. Through 2018, MSTIP will have invested $730 million in 130 multimodal projects since the program’s inception in 1986. Currently about $35 million is available annually through the program. MSTIP projects are significant in scope and have allowed dozens of miles of new sidewalk to be built in long, continuous stretches. Some MSTIP projects do not provide additional motor vehicle travel lanes and are therefore focused primarily on providing pedestrian, bicycle and lighting improvements. Examples include SW Oleson Road, SW 170th Avenue south of Farmington Road, and the upcoming SW 198th Avenue project. As of this writing, projects are being developed for the next round of MSTIP, called MSTIP 3e. This round of funding will construct projects over the five-year period from 2019 through 2023. MSTIP also includes two offshoot programs:

• MSTIP Opportunity Fund – In 2012 the Board established a $5 million set-aside of

MSTIP 3d (the current five-year allocation of MSTIP) for the purpose of providing matching funds for competitive grants. Project eligibility is broad, but is intended to focus on unique projects that would not otherwise meet the intent of the core MSTIP

11 The System of Countywide Interest map was endorsed by the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) in 2007 and subsequently amended in 2012 and 2015. The latest version is scheduled to be endorsed by the WCCC in January 2016 as part of the MSTIP 3e process.

ATTACHMENT A

program, including stand-alone pedestrian/bicycle improvements, access-to-transit projects, travel demand management (TDM) and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). The Board and Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) have indicated support for increasing the Opportunity Fund allocation to $7.5 million under MSTIP 3e.

• Residential High-Growth Transportation Funding Program – Approved by the

Board in June 2015, this program is funded by bonds paid back by anticipated growth in the MSTIP fund. It is intended to address safety and capacity needs on county roads near major new development areas along the edge of the Urban Growth Boundary. The approved 10-year list of projects includes several projects that focus primarily on pedestrian, bicycle and lighting improvements, including NW Thompson Road near Bonny Slope West, SW Kinnaman Road near South Hillsboro, and SW Tile Flat Road near South Cooper Mountain. Other projects that add vehicular capacity are also constructing sidewalks in places where they do not currently exist, such as NW Springville Road near North Bethany and SW Roy Rogers Road near River Terrace.

o Transportation Development Tax (TDT) – The TDT, which replaced the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) in 2009, is a countywide transportation System Development Charge (SDC). TDT revenues, consistent with state statutes pertaining to SDCs, can be spent only on additional capacity for future users. Pedestrian/bicycle improvements are eligible for TDT spending because they increase the capacity of the roadway. TDT and TIF have been used to expand a number or roadways to include additional vehicle lanes, bike lanes and sidewalks. Washington County’s first TDT capital investment will be the widening and realignment of NW Springville Road between 185th and 178th Avenues, including complete sidewalks on both sides of the road.12 TDT revenues vary annually. Unincorporated Washington County collected approximately $8.5 million in FY 2014-15 and had an account balance of approximately $19.9 million on August 3, 2015.

o Minor Betterment Program – The Minor Betterment program was a small allocation of the county Road Fund originating from fuel taxes. The intent of the program was to provide small-scale improvements that were beyond routine maintenance but not large enough to be programmed as capital projects. Many (but not all) Minor Betterment projects filled gaps in the pedestrian network. These pedestrian improvements typically did not meet county sidewalk standards. Instead, asphalt pathways or wide shoulder walkways were provided to fill walkway gaps in a low cost fashion. Each year, project candidates were collected from the public and a joint citizen-staff selection committee scores and prioritizes projects based on Candidate Evaluation Criteria. The committee invited and reviewed public comments on the top candidates prior to making a recommendation. The Minor Betterment program is funded at $500,000 for FY 2015-16 and will fund three projects. There is currently no plan to fund the Minor Betterment

12 The project is in design phase as of January 2016. Several cities in Washington County have already spent TDT on capital improvements within their respective jurisdictions.

ATTACHMENT A

program for FY 2016-17 and beyond. For the foreseeable future, the Road Fund is needed to address deferred road maintenance.

o Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD) Safety Improvement Program – The

URMD taxing district covers much of UUWC and is used primarily for maintenance of Local Streets and Neighborhood Routes. The URMD is funded through property taxes, with an assessment of $0.2456 per $1,000 in assessed property value. In 2011 the Board decided to set aside some URMD funds for safety projects, including pedestrian infrastructure needs. In FY 2015-16, $2.5 million was allocated to six URMD Safety projects. The citizen-led URMD Advisory Committee (URMDAC) uses a process similar to the Minor Betterment Program to prioritize projects, using the same Candidate Evaluation Criteria and public comment process. In addition, funded improvements draw from the same list of candidates and are constructed in a similar fashion to Minor Betterments. The URMD Safety Improvement Program is anticipated to continue until county roadways begin to approach minimum Pavement Condition Index (PCI) levels, at which time the funds will likely be redirected back to pavement maintenance. When the program was originally proposed, it was projected to have $17 million available over 10 years. Actual spending after four years has been $8.5 million due to higher project costs. URMDAC has recommended projects estimated to cost about $2 million for FY 2016-17. Assuming a continued allocation of $2 million per year, the program should be able to function through FY 2019-20 or FY 2020-21. It might last a year or two longer if pavement deterioration is slower than projected or if assessed valuations increase at a rate higher than currently projected.

o Local Improvement District (LID) – Per County Title 3 – Revenue and Finance,

Chapter 3.20, LIDs can be formed for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining public improvements financed wholly or in part by a special tax assessment on benefitting properties. LIDs have been used by LUT Operations & Maintenance Division to upgrade gravel roads and to chip-seal roads. A handful of LIDs are also in effect for traffic calming measures and ongoing road maintenance. So far, LIDs have not been used to build sidewalks on county roads, in part due to the relatively high costs of drainage, water quality, ADA compliance and utility relocations. These costs would likely exceed what property owners are willing to pay for sidewalk installation. However, CDC Section 502-8 (Developed Area Sidewalks) enables the Board to create LIDs for the express purpose of constructing sidewalks along already developed properties. For such LIDs, a petition must be signed by at least 51 percent of property owners within the proposed LID and those who sign must also represent a majority of the linear frontage of the proposed sidewalk.

o County Service District (CSD). State statute allows the county to form a service district and levy ad valorem property taxes for the purpose of constructing road improvements.13 The URMD is one such district. Washington County established another CSD in the North Bethany subarea to help finance new roads and improvements to existing roads in the area. Properties within that CSD are assessed $1.25 per $1,000 of assessed value for a

13 ORS 371 – Road Districts and Road Assessment Plans; ORS 451 – County Service Facilities.

ATTACHMENT A

period of thirty years. It is anticipated that the North Bethany CSD will raise approximately $22 million over this time period. CSDs typically must be approved by voters who live in the affected area. A CSD specific to sidewalk improvements could be explored for other areas of UUWC.

o Federal transportation funds – Outside of pass-through funds to the state, most

ongoing federal transportation funds are managed by Metro regional government and are programmed every three years through the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). A subset of these funds is made available to local jurisdictions through a competitive process known as the Regional Flexible Fund Allocation (RFFA). The last RFFA round allocated 75% of funds for “active transportation/complete streets” and 25% for freight projects. The next round (2019-21) is anticipated to have at least $38 million in competitive funds available for capital projects around the region. Policies are still under development as of this writing. Past RFFA active transportation funds have been used to fund trails, sidewalks, pedestrian crossings and bicycle infrastructure. Generally speaking, federal transportation funds have been stagnant while needs have been increasing. The Federal Highway Trust Fund has been eroded by inflation and reduced per capita fuel consumption and has required backfilling from the U.S. Treasury. After years of short-term extensions of the previous transportation bill, Congress passed and the President signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in December 2015. While the bill does not solve the systemic transportation funding problem, it does provide five years of stable federal funding for transportation, including increased allocations for local governments and for Transportation Alternatives – the set-aside typically used for pedestrian/bicycle projects. Other federal sources include the following: • Federal Community Development Block Grants (CBDG) – Federal funds are

available from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to fund infrastructure in communities that meet certain demographic and economic characteristics. Sidewalks are an eligible and common expense of CDBG funds. In 2014, Washington County used CDBG funds to build a sidewalk on SW 173rd Avenue linking to Aloha-Huber School. During this project LUT Engineering staff found that it was not cost-efficient to use federal funds to construct such a small project.

• Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Now in its

seventh round, the U.S. Department of Transportation offers discretionary grants for large, “shovel-ready” capital projects or major transportation planning projects. The 2015 grant round, called TIGER VII, had $500 million available nationwide. Stand-alone sidewalk projects typically do not compete well for TIGER funds, unless bundled into larger projects such as industrial access, corridor revitalization, bridge or transit capital projects.

ATTACHMENT A

o State transportation funds – The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) administers state transportation funds, which are predominantly pass-through funds from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Prior to 2013, ODOT maintained funding set-asides for Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes to School. These programs were commonly used for sidewalks, including a 2013 Washington County project on NW 90th Avenue and Stark Street near West Tualatin View Elementary School. Currently all non-maintenance state transportation funds are bundled into an allocation called “Enhance” under the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Sidewalks and other pedestrian improvements along Tualatin Valley Highway in Aloha have been funded through STIP Enhance. STIP Enhance funds are increasingly limited as federal transportation funds stagnate and more emphasis is placed on basic maintenance. Separately, a portion of Oregon Lottery funds are allocated into a transportation program called Connect Oregon. However, eligible improvements for past rounds of Connect Oregon have focused on off-street pedestrian/bicycle connections, rail freight and maritime improvements. Another effort to raise additional state transportation funds through increased fuel taxes and vehicle fees failed during the 2015 state legislative session but may be revisited in the 2017 session.

o Gain Share – Washington County receives a

share of state income tax revenue generated by firms that have received tax abatements through the Oregon Strategic Investment Program. In 2013 the Board agreed to allocate $15 million in Gain Share funds (about 7% of projected Gain Share funds) to pedestrian/bicycle projects throughout the county. LUT selected 15 projects, drawing from the DOE and Minor Betterment project lists and other sources. Eleven of these projects, totaling $6 million, have gone to construction. In July 2015, Oregon Senate Bill 129 modified the Gain Share agreement, resulting in a $16 million annual cap on funds for Washington County. This had the effect of cancelling any Gain Share ped/bike projects that were not already underway. The County Administrative Office (CAO) reworked the Gain Share spending program and on December 15, 2015 the Board adopted a revised program that dedicates $2 million per year over ten years for “Safe Access to Schools.” Intent moving forward is to invest this $20 million in sidewalk, crosswalk and accessway projects identified in the 2015 School Access Improvement Study.

Taylor Street sidewalk constructed with Gain Share funding in December 2015.

ATTACHMENT A

Prioritization Methods LUT has taken deliberate steps to prioritize sidewalk on county roads. Efforts have included the following: o Small Road Improvement Candidates List / URMD Safety Public Comment Process

– LUT Operations maintains a list of sidewalk gaps and other needs, populated by ongoing service requests from the public. Through the previous Minor Betterment and URMD Safety programs described above, LUT calls on the public to comment on nominated candidates. The process has been effective; however, some neighborhoods are more active than others in nominating candidates.

o Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project – The aforementioned

DOE project identified over 500 sidewalk and bike lane gaps on Arterials and Collectors in urban Washington County. These gaps were evaluated using criteria including population density and land use mix, surrounding street connectivity, safety, and benefits to traditionally underserved communities. Outcomes included the identification of 30 high-priority sidewalk and bike lane projects with planning-level cost estimates.

o Aloha-Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan – Based on direction gleaned

from an extensive public involvement process, LUT staff identified and prioritized a list of 99 sidewalk, crossing and accessway projects that would provide safe, convenient walking access to public K-12 schools in the area. The prioritization involved pedestrian network modeling that estimated potential usage levels for home-to-school trips. The resulting prioritized list included 11 sidewalk projects.

o School Access Improvement Study – Completed as part of Washington County’s Safe

Routes to School program in October 2015, this document identifies and provides planning-level cost estimates for key walkway and other pedestrian projects that would help students safely walk to public schools in UUWC. The study identifies over $98 million in projects for a total of 53 schools. Further prioritization of projects will be necessary.

o Transportation Improvement Master List (TIM) – GIS staff have developed an interactive mapping tool available to all LUT employees to keep track of the wide range of transportation improvement needs that have been identified in plans, by staff and through public comments. While TIM is not a prioritization tool per se, it allows users to view improvement needs in the context of other information in order to better inform decision making. It is a particularly good tool for identifying needs that appear on multiple project lists or have been requested by the public multiple times.

ATTACHMENT A

Measuring Progress As part of the TSP update in 2014, LUT staff developed performance targets for sidewalk and bike lane completion on urban Arterials and Collectors in Washington County.14 For sidewalks, the performance target is 84% of Arterial/Collectors having sidewalks on both sides of the street by the year 2040. This would represent a 50% increase in sidewalk miles in concert with the Metro Regional Transportation Plan performance target for “Basic Infrastructure” (2014 RTP Table 2.3). Complete implementation of the TSP Capital Project Candidate List would result in 70% of Arterials and Collectors having sidewalk coverage on both sides, moving Washington County about halfway toward the target. Staff intends to maintain and periodically update the Arterial/Collector sidewalk inventory as county projects and development incrementally move the county toward a complete sidewalk network. Additionally, LUT Operations & Maintenance Division hosts a central repository of transportation asset information called the Integrated Road Inventory System (IRIS), along with a graphical user interface called Asset Browser. Together these tools document facility characteristics and conditions as well as facility permit information. Primary data classes available on Asset Browser include: Jurisdiction, Permits, Bridges, Signals, Culverts, Street Lighting, and Road Projects. IRIS and Asset Browser may be appropriate tools for developing a comprehensive sidewalk and bike lane inventory for county roadways. IV. Analysis This section provides a summary of key takeaways from the preceding Background section, then provides an analysis of different walkway types from a cost and safety perspective. A. Key Takeaways from Background Section

Major findings from the Background section, which help inform the subsequent Analysis and Recommendations, include the following:

• While over half of the Arterial/Collector mileage in urban Washington County has

walkways on both sides of the street, nearly one-fifth has no pedestrian facilities and one-quarter has interim and/or one-sided walkways. In Aloha-Reedville, one-third of walkways are missing on all roadway types.

• Different eras of development, stalled subdivisions, different county funding programs,

and varied application of county codes and standards have resulted in a patchwork of standard, non-standard and/or absent walkways.

14 A-Engrossed Ordinance 783, Technical Appendix 3: System Evaluation, pp 64-65, October 2014.

ATTACHMENT A

• There is strong policy and code guidance in the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban area, Transportation System Plan, Community Plans and Community Development Code to improve the walkway network in UUWC.

• Sidewalks are required for most development; exceptions include single family lots of record and single family lots with greater than 250 feet of frontage and/or no existing, adjacent sidewalks.

• The county sidewalk standard is a five-foot concrete walkway set back four feet from a six-inch curb; wider sidewalks are required or recommended in areas where more pedestrian activity is expected. Non-standard curbside sidewalks have been built in many locations due to right-of-way constraints and trade-offs with other features of the roadway.

• R&O 86-95 – the county’s process for determining transportation safety improvements by development – does not adequately address non-vehicular needs, especially off-site.

• The Transportation Development Tax code allows credit for building sidewalks only in rare circumstances, including if they are built off-site and/or larger than standard.

• Sidewalks that are required as conditions of development approval are subject to appeal based on the legal concepts of nexus and proportionality as established by U.S. Supreme Court case law (Nollan/Dolan/Koontz).

• Development applicants are increasingly exercising these appeal rights to oppose

sidewalk and other public improvement requirements; Hearings Officers are increasingly deciding in favor of the appellants.

• The Homebuilders Association has requested earlier notification of what public facility

improvements will be required; the county offers the Traffic Impact Statement process and pre-application conferences for this purpose.

• Washington County has access to at least 14 available funding sources to construct sidewalks, at least five of which are controlled or managed by the Board of Commissioners.

• State and federal transportation funding is stagnant and not keeping pace with inflation and system needs; it is increasingly unreliable as a source for enhancement funds, even with recent passage of the federal FAST Act.

• The CDC, Washington County Code and state statute enable the county to use LIDs and CSDs to construct sidewalks; however, property owners may not be willing or able to shoulder all of the associated costs, such as stormwater treatment.

ATTACHMENT A

• Through several different processes, Washington County has prioritized sidewalk needs on urban Arterials and Collectors, near schools in Aloha-Reedville and in other locations in UUWC; matching these needs with funding is the next logical step.

• Washington County has tools in use to continually monitor sidewalk needs, including the Transportation Improvement Master List, the DOE/TSP Arterial/Collector sidewalk inventory, and Operations & Maintenance IRIS and Asset Browser.

B. Walkway Construction Cost

Staff performed an analysis of infill walkway projects recently built by the county to assess the cost differences between different walkway design and material types. Because of the variety of contexts and scales in which the projects were built, this analysis was inconclusive and is not included in this paper. Generally, walkway projects cost between $250 and $500 per lineal foot to construct. This cost covers engineering, project management, inspection, construction and contingency necessary to provide a walkway facility that is four to five feet wide. As with any cost estimate, unique circumstances at each particular project site can add or subtract from these numbers. In particular, stormwater improvements and right-of-way tend to inflate project costs significantly. Typically, a wide-shoulder walkway is less expensive to construct than a concrete separated sidewalk. Cost differences between concrete and asphalt construction were inconclusive. Long-term maintenance costs also must be considered.

C. Safety Analysis of Different Walkway Types

All dedicated walkway facilities provide improved safety for people walking. The Federal Highway Administration publication, Safety Benefits of Walkways, Sidewalks, and Paved Shoulders,15 notes that approximately 4,500 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles annually (representing 13% of all traffic fatalities), and that 8% of these collisions are “walking along roadway” crashes. FHWA cites safety benefits of both sidewalks and wide shoulder walkways, based on a literature review. Specifically, the agency finds that:

• Sidewalks on both sides of the roadway reduce “walking along roadway” crashes by 88%.

• Paved wide shoulders (minimum 4-foot width) reduce “walking along roadway” crashes by 71%.

Providing guidance on appropriate contexts for the above walkway types, FHWA notes that:

Sidewalks should be considered the preferred treatment for accommodating pedestrians in urban areas and where frequent pedestrian use is expected. For less developed areas with occasional

15 US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Safety Program, 2010.

ATTACHMENT A

pedestrian traffic expected, walkable shoulders (a minimum of 4 feet stabilized or paved surface) should be provided along both sides of rural highways.

The concept of “perceived safety” is also important to consider when making decisions about walkway types. FHWA makes the case that:

Providing walkways for pedestrians dramatically increases how well pedestrians perceive their needs are being met along roadways. The wider the separation is between the pedestrian and the roadway, the more comfortable the pedestrian facility.

For this reason, separated sidewalks are the design and construction standard for many jurisdictions, including Washington County. LUT staff have received feedback from individuals and entities with safety concerns about wide-shoulder walkways and curbside sidewalks. Beaverton School District staff has stated that wide-shoulder walkways will not be considered as part of a school-sanctioned “safe routes to school,” particularly if located along busier roadways.

However, wide-shoulder walkways, curbside sidewalks and other non-standard walkway facilities will continue to be installed in certain situations to fill critical gaps in the walkway network at a reasonable cost.

V. Recommendations

To better address walkway gaps in UUWC, staff recommends further consideration of 11 different options, including six potential administrative changes that can be implemented by staff, and eight potential legislative changes that would require adoption by the Board of Commissioners. Each recommendation below is accompanied by supporting information. The word “potential” is included under both headings to indicate that the Board and Planning Commission may want to weigh in on these recommendations. Potential Administrative Changes: 1. Expand capabilities and usage of the Transportation Improvement Master List (TIM) for

documenting, characterizing, mapping and monitoring walkway gaps and programmed projects.

The county has a well-developed Geographic Information System (GIS) that is being used to keep track of walkway gaps and to monitor progress toward meeting sidewalk completion goals. TIM was developed with the purpose of consolidating and digitizing a number of different project or project candidate lists maintained by county staff in different divisions. The consolidated list is mapped and made available to all staff through a web-based GIS tool. TIM is a good platform for finding sidewalk project opportunities that have been identified on multiple lists. For example, a certain segment of county roadway may appear on the DOE

ATTACHMENT A

list and the Small Road Improvement Candidates List while also receiving multiple public requests for improvement. Another desired function that could be integrated with TIM is providing Current Planning (and other) staff with better information on committed sidewalk projects in the area of proposed development, including Trust & Agency accounts and Facility Permits. For example, if it is known that a particular developing property is located immediately to the east of a funded county sidewalk project, and immediately to the west is a Trust & Agency account dedicated to frontage improvements, LUT staff could work together to deliver a cohesive sidewalk project connecting all three locations. In concert with TIM and IRIS, the Arterial/Collector sidewalk inventory created through the DOE project and updated during the 2014 TSP update should continue to be updated as sidewalks are completed by county projects and development improvements. Doing so would provide staff with an indication of how well the county is progressing toward its goal of 84% of Arterials and Collectors having sidewalks on both sides of the street. The process of updating TIM should continue, including adding new project needs that arise, as well as changing the status of projects once they are funded and constructed. Staff from multiple LUT divisions would be involved in this effort, with Long Range Planning GIS staff in a coordination role.

2. Add walkway presence/absence information to the Integrated Road Inventory System and

Asset Browser.

The Integrated Road Inventory System (IRIS), maintained by LUT Operations and Maintenance Division, is the county’s centralized digital repository for transportation-related features and assets. Asset Browser, also maintained by LUT Operations, is a graphical user interface that depicts IRIS information along with a variety of other features and details drawn from database and GIS platforms. IRIS is generally more spatially precise and updated more frequently than TIM. As a result, IRIS is probably the most appropriate platform for storing and updating walkway information for county roadways. LUT Operations staff have begun integrating and quality-checking walkway information from a variety of sources, including the DOE/TSP Arterial/Collector inventory, the 2015 School Access Improvement Study, the Aloha-Reedville Study, and as-built development. Unique walkway information is shown for each side of the roadway for superior visualization, and any walkway typology information is being preserved from the source data (for example, standard sidewalk vs. non-standard walkway). Sidewalk data will continue to be updated by LUT Operations staff on an ongoing basis as data becomes available and resources allow, with the ultimate goal of completing walkway information for all road segments maintained by Washington County. Walkway information stored in IRIS will be graphically depicted in Asset Browser. Staff may also consider adding Trust & Agency account information to Asset Browser.

ATTACHMENT A

3. Focus walkway project development efforts on gaps identified in the following sources: o Washington County Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project (“DOE

project,” 2012) o Aloha-Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan, Addendum C: Pedestrian and

Bicycle Plan (2014) o School Access Improvement Study (2015) o Small Road Improvement Candidates List (ongoing) o External sources, including the TriMet Pedestrian Network Analysis, ODOT

Pedestrian/Bicycle Inventory, and the Metro Regional Active Transportation Plan o Future studies that identify and prioritize sidewalk gaps.

LUT staff has spent considerable time and resources over the past four years identifying and prioritizing the most critical sidewalk gaps on county roads. The DOE project addressed Arterials and Collectors; the Aloha-Reedville and School Access Improvement Study efforts identified needs on all roadway types near schools; and the Small Road Improvement Candidates project list is a good source for other gaps identified by the public. Funding allocated through recommendation #11 should be applied to these identified sidewalk priorities.

4. As part of future capital projects and facility permits, identify opportunities to strategically

and efficiently address walkway gaps on other roadways in the immediate vicinity.

Common practice during major Washington County capital projects has been to address some deficiencies on nearby, adjacent roadways. For example, the NW Cornelius Pass Road project between U.S. 26 and Cornell Road is constructing missing bike lanes along intersecting Evergreen Parkway. The SW Farmington Road project in Beaverton is realigning 141st and 142nd Avenues to create a standard, four-point intersection. The 124th Avenue / Basalt Creek Parkway project is improving the geometry of Tonquin Road in both directions. Some LUT staff have been referring to these efforts as “backpack projects” – one or more small projects attached to a larger project. A backpack project can be accomplished more efficiently as part of major capital project than as a stand-alone project because of overhead and mobilization costs. As future capital projects are scoped, efforts should be made to scan the immediately surrounding area and reference the plans and studies listed under recommendation #3 to identify walkway gaps that could be addressed without taking significant funds away from the core project. Similar efforts could be implemented when private contractors are completing required right-of-way improvements through the Facility Permit process as part of development. The county would reimburse the developer/contractor for any work above and beyond the conditions of approval.

ATTACHMENT A

5. Identify interim system completion targets for different roadway functional classes, or for different locational contexts (such as Pedestrian/Bicycle Districts or areas near schools).

One way of helping ensure that walkway investments are being made in the most sensible, beneficial locations is to identify different system completion targets for different contexts. The System Evaluation16 performed as part of the 2014 TSP update proposed a target of 84% sidewalk completion along Arterials/Collectors by the year 2040. This target could be bifurcated and broadened to identify different walkway completion targets for different roadway functional classes. Presumably, Arterials would have the highest targets and Local Streets would have the lowest. Alternatively, a more context-sensitive approach could be taken in which walkway completion targets are determined by location with respect to one of more of the following adopted or non-adopted features: o Public schools (e.g., one-quarter-mile radius around schools) o Transit stops (e.g., one-quarter-mile buffer of streets with transit, or a radius around

Major Transit Stops adopted in the Community Plans) o Pedestrian Parkways and/or Streetscape Overlays adopted in the TSP o Pedestrian/Bicycle Districts adopted in the TSP Completion targets developed based on this recommendation would likely take the form of an unofficial department policy. If more formal action is desired, the policy could be memorialized by a Board Resolution and Order. Complex performance targets with multiple gradations and contexts are probably not appropriate to adopt into the TSP.

6. Institute a more coordinated, intra-divisional effort to prioritize transportation projects

(including walkway projects) and match them with appropriate internal and external funding sources, including a regularly-scheduled transportation project “super-committee.”

Washington County is fortunate to have several local transportation funding programs established by current and past Boards and voters (MSTIP, TDT, URMD, Gain Share, etc.), and to have access to external funding (RFFA, STIP, etc.). While these programs are effective, they are also somewhat “siloed.” Different staff manage different programs, and often times priorities must be re-evaluated at each funding opportunity. Instituting a formal, consolidated Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has not been the recent practice at LUT, mainly due to concerns about inflexibility and the uniqueness of each funding program. LUT’s closest analog to a CIP is the Capital Project List included in the Technical Appendix to the TSP.17

16A-Engrossed Ordinance 783, Technical Appendix 3: System Evaluation, pp 64-65, October 2014. 17 A-Engrossed Ordinance 783, Technical Appendix 2: Capital Project List, October 2014.

ATTACHMENT A

Short of developing a CIP, LUT could revise internal procedures and create a transportation project super-committee that meets regularly to discuss current transportation priorities, upcoming funding rounds, and how to best match the two. This would include discussion of what projects to propose for regional, state and federal grant opportunities, what projects to prioritize for county MSTIP and TDT funding, what smaller-scale needs (such as stand-alone walkway projects) to address with URMD and Gain Share, what improvements are proposed to be built by development, and how to take advantage of any leverage or efficiency opportunities. A similar effort took place in 2013 during the planning of the initial round of Gain Share pedestrian/bike projects. LUT staff from Planning & Development Services, Engineering & Construction Services, Operations & Maintenance, and the Director’s Office came together to assess previously-identified priorities within different funding silos and arrived at a prioritized list that addressed multiple needs. This effort was very effective and could be reinstated.

Potential Legislative Changes:

7. Replace or revise Resolution & Order 86-95 (Determining Traffic Safety Improvements

under the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance – Process Documentation) with a multimodal transportation development improvement process with guidance from the 2014 Multimodal Performance Measures and Standards report.

After 30 years, R&O 86-95 continues to be an effective tool for identifying vehicular safety issues and requiring development to address them, as appropriate. However, overhauling or building upon the procedure is necessary to better incorporate pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes. Doing so would provide the county with a better-informed, more effective process for requiring on-site and off-site walkways during development. It would also provide greater certainty and fairness for the development community by basing pedestrian improvement requirements on measurable, objective criteria. The grant-funded Multimodal Performance Measures and Standards project in 2014 explored several ways to better address multimodal transportation performance in the context of development review, corridor/area plans, and transportation system plans. For development review, it recommended the following series of actions: o Define system adequacy in terms of system completeness and system performance. o Assess existing conditions. o Define an impact area (four options were explored, including a district-based system,

routes to essential destinations, distance along the network, and a set radius from the development).

o Determine development impact, including data on pedestrian trip generation. o Develop mitigation strategies. o Determine the multimodal impacts of the mitigation, including trade-offs between modes. o Determine proportional share.

ATTACHMENT A

In September 2015, Long Range Planning staff organized a cross-divisional work group and kicked off a process to update the R&O 86-95 function, pursuant to the 2015 Long Range Planning Work Program. As of this writing, the work group has reviewed the current functions of R&O 86-95 (“what’s working, what’s not”), explored the recommendations of the Multimodal Performance Measures and Standards project, and divided into sub-groups to explore the following four topics that have shown the most promise for agreed-upon action: o Cumulative impact and safety – Are existing mechanisms such as the Safety Priority

Index System (SPIS) adequately documenting multimodal safety issues, particularly pedestrian/bicycle network issues? What can be done when multiple developments cumulatively cause a safety issue but no one development triggers the issue individually? There is general agreement that emphasizing safety (rather than system completeness) puts the county in a better position if improvement requirements are appealed.

o Capacity-based approaches – How can LUT better leverage private development to provide transportation improvements, particularly when those improvements are not triggered by safety issues but rather capacity and system completeness needs (such as widening a road and adding sidewalks)? How have other jurisdictions in the county accomplished this and made it a “win-win” for both the developer and the public? Tools being discussed include voluntary conditions of approval to build capacity/ system improvements that result in 100% TDT credit for eligible improvements.

o Proportionality – Given that U.S. case law (Nollan/Dollan/Koontz) restricts what and

how much can be asked of development, how can improvements such as off-site walkways be required in a way that is fair and that demonstrates nexus and proportionality to the development’s impacts? Are tools such as CDC 501-10.2 (which requires walkway connections to nearby pedestrian generators in North Bethany) appropriate for wider implementation?

o Off-site right-of-way acquisition – Even if LUT and a developer agree to a condition to

build off-site walkways, it is often difficult for the developer to negotiate the required right-of-way from a third party. Since LUT is better equipped to purchase right-of-way, could a special fund be established specifically for purchasing right-of-way for off-site development improvements?

It is recommended that the desired updates to R&O 86-95 be codified in the CDC to make it easy for staff, developers and the public to know the associated rules and processes in one document.

8. Clarify or revise conflicting Community Development Code sections regarding the circumstances in which public improvements are required.

As referenced earlier in this paper, CDC sections 501-2.2 and 502-1.4 are conflicting: The former indicates that development of a single detached dwelling unit or duplex is exempt

ATTACHMENT A

from public improvement requirements, while the latter indicates that those developments must build a sidewalk if the lot frontage is less than or equal to 250 feet and sidewalks exist (or will exist) along adjacent properties. Current Planning staff have developed an administrative interpretation to exempt sidewalk requirements for single family detached homes on existing lots of record. A CDC amendment is recommended to remove the conflict between these two provisions and to instate a requirement that matches current administrative practice. This also may be an opportunity to address other conflicting or unclear sidewalk requirements in Article V, such as whether the eight-foot sidewalk required along certain state highways includes or does not include the four-foot planter strip indicated in county road standards (CDC 502-13.3).

9. Amend Article VII of the CDC to exempt from land use review walkway projects that would require additional right-of-way but would otherwise meet the requirements of CDC Section 702-4 (Exempt Projects).

Article VII (Public Transportation Facilities) is intended to provide a review process for major transportation capital projects to ensure that they do not adversely impact the surrounding community. Projects are either categorized as being either exempt from Article VII, or are classified in Categories A, B or C, with increasing discretion and legal judgement required under categories with higher letters. CDC 702-3 allows “operational improvements within existing right-of-way and ancillary easements,” including “pedestrian ways,” to be exempt from Article VII. This recommendation would expand the Article VII exemption of pedestrian ways to include those that require right-of-way acquisition, but that otherwise have minimal impacts. To define minimal impacts, criteria in CDC 702-4 could be applied: o No removal or displacement of buildings occur; o No new land parcels result; o The facility is not located in a flood plain, drainage hazard area or Significant Natural

Resource Area; o No change or alteration to a designated historic or cultural resource occur, pursuant to

CDC Section 373 (Historic and Cultural Overlay Districts); o No additional travel lanes result; and o No reduction in bicycle and pedestrian facilities result.

Discretion may be needed in some circumstances. For example, if major grading and retaining walls are needed to construct the walkway, an Article VII review may still be appropriate.

ATTACHMENT A

10. Take limited actions to address improvement needs on non-county public roadways in

UUWC.

A small number of public roadways in UUWC have not been “accepted” as county roadways and are therefore not eligible for Road Fund expenditures based on state statute.18 In many cases this is not a problem. However, if the surrounding community desires walkways or other improvements on these roads, the county cannot legally provide any help unless the Board takes special action. ORS 368.031 (2) states:

A county governing body shall spend county moneys on the local access road only if it determines that the work is an emergency or if:

(a) The county road official recommends the expenditure; (b) The public use of the road justifies the expenditure proposed; and (c) The county governing body enacts an order or resolution authorizing the work and

designating the work to be either a single project or a continuing program. In limited circumstances where deemed appropriate, the county could take one of the ORS actions above, or it could bring the road into county maintenance. Alternatively, URMD could agree to address the issue. A similar challenge prevents the county from constructing or maintaining accessways in off-street public rights-of-way. As a result, the county generally has not been improving these locations. Several recent plans and strategies, including the Aloha-Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan and the School Access Improvement Study, recommend specific accessway connections to improve connectivity and access to key destinations such as schools. As with the non-county public roadways, the Board would need to take special action to improve these locations.

11. Examine, consider, and discuss other financial tools listed in “Appendix A”. These can come back to the Board as separate work sessions discussion. Recent Board discussions and direction that influence future decisions on walkway gap funding include MSTIP 3e and Gain Share.

The MSTIP will continue to address multimodal capacity and safety needs on Arterial and limited Collector roadways, including projects where pedestrian/bicycle needs are the primary focus. (For example, the SW 198th Avenue MSTIP project will provide sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting and a center left turn lane, but will not provide additional vehicle travel lanes). For the next round of MSTIP (3e, construction starting in 2019), the Board has tentatively indicated support for funding some stand-alone pedestrian/bicycle projects along eligible roadways, in addition to projects that fully rebuild entire roadways. Several cities in Washington County are interested in using MSTIP funds for these smaller infill projects. Standard separated concrete sidewalk is recommended for all MSTIP projects.

18 ORS 368.031 – County jurisdiction over local access roads.

ATTACHMENT A

MSTIP 3e – The Board has already set parameters for the MSTIP 3e funding program, which includes an increase to the MSTIP Opportunity Fund to $7.5 million dollars. The opportunity fund can continue to leverage outside grants to build pedestrian focused projects. Unlike the core MSTIP funds, the Opportunity Fund can be applied to projects on Local Streets, Neighborhood Routes and off-street pathways. The County is currently working with partner cities to develop the MSTIP 3e funding program for 2019 through 2023. MSTIP 3e is expected to have elements very similar to those noted for MSTIP 3d. The public will be asked to weigh in on the MSTIP 3e program this spring. The Board of Commissioners is expected to adopt the MSTIP 3e program in fall 2016.

Gain Share – On December 15, 2015 the Board adopted a revised Gain Share program that dedicates $2 million per year over ten years for “Safe Access to Schools.” The intent moving forward is to invest this $20 million in sidewalk, crosswalk or accessway projects identified in the 2015 School Access Improvement Study. Traffic safety improvements identified in the study vary by school and include sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalk treatments, and trails. Decisions on the next set of projects are anticipated by summer of 2016.

VI. Conclusion Addressing the significant backlog of walkways gaps in UUWC requires a strategic, multi-faceted approach involving both private development and public investments. LUT staff has presented 11 potential actions that would help implement this approach and work toward gradual completion of the walkway network, with an emphasis on the most critical gaps. If desired, the Board of Commissioners can direct staff to further investigate any of these recommendations, and/or to move some of them forward as ordinances, as part of the 2016 Long Range Planning Work Program or future Work Programs.

ATTACHMENT A

Appendix A

Potential Financial Tools to Consider to Address Walkway Gaps

1. Develop a fee-in-lieu sidewalk program that allows development along certain Local

Streets with low vehicle volumes to pay into a fund dedicated to completing higher-need sidewalks identified in a neighborhood sidewalk plan.

On Local Streets with very low traffic volumes and little potential for additional traffic in the future, an alternative public improvement requirement could allow developers pay a fee-in-lieu of constructing sidewalk. The fee would go toward constructing a nearby sidewalk or walkway that is deemed to be more beneficial to the community. A neighborhood sidewalk plan would be necessary to identify which roadways are eligible for exemption from sidewalk construction and which roadways would be targeted for walkway improvements using the collected fees. Neighborhood sidewalk plans could build upon previous efforts such as the School Access Improvement Study, but would still require significant staff time. Additional considerations include the following: o The applicability of this provision should be limited because development is often the

only opportunity for Local Streets to be improved with sidewalks. In addition, state law requires sidewalks along “most local streets in urban areas.”19 Limitations should include the following:

• Development of multiple lots (adjacent or otherwise) on the same street by the same developer should not be able to use this provision.

• Eligible streets should have very low traffic volumes and speeds. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance on woonerven (plural of woonerf, a shared street concept originating in the Netherlands) recommends no more than 100 vehicles per hour, and speeds between 8 and 15 miles per hour.20 Future traffic volumes should be considered along with existing volumes.

o Developers should still have the option of constructing the sidewalk rather than paying

the fee.

19 Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0045. 20 Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, Lesson 20: Traffic Calming, July 2006. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/05085/chapt20.cfm

ATTACHMENT A

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/05085/chapt20.cfm

o Fee-in-lieu does not eliminate nexus and proportionality concerns, particularly after the Koontz case. Some developers may ask why a fee is being charged in addition to the Transportation Development Tax (even though TDT cannot be used on Local Streets).

2. Continue County investment in walkways using funding sources that are controlled or managed by Washington County, including: o Transportation Development Tax o Urban Road Maintenance District

Typically the County has relied on state and federal grants to fund stand-alone pedestrian/ bicycle projects that do not otherwise fit into the County’s existing portfolio of funding programs. For example, the County received an Oregon Safe Routes to School grant and a federal Community Development Block Grant earlier this decade to complete sidewalks on non-Arterial roadways near schools in UUWC.21 However, even with the recent passage of the FAST Act with its modest increase in Transportation Alternatives funding, federal and state transportation funds remain scarce and competitive. County transportation funding may be a superior option for funding walkway projects in places where development is not likely to provide them. Local funding would also avoid the costs and complexities of federalization, which can be particularly problematic for small projects. At least two County transportation funding programs could be further used to address walkway gaps in UUWC:

o Transportation Development Tax (TDT) funds, which are limited by state statute to

providing additional capacity for future users of facilities listed on the adopted Capital Project List, can be used to build sidewalks that increase overall travel capacity on those facilities. The TDT Capital Project List includes a discrete set of Arterials and Collectors, as well as a small number of off-street or Local Street connections to transit service. In practice, TDT has typically been used for roadway widening in newly growing areas (such as NW Springville Road near North Bethany). However, TDT may also be an appropriate source for funding sidewalk projects in infill development areas such as Aloha, Cedar Hills and Metzger. Re-evaluation of TDT is an identified Tier 1 task on the 2016 work program.

o The Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD) Safety Improvement Program is

anticipated to continue funding walkway projects at about $2 million per year through at least FY 2019-20, until such time that the funds are needed for road maintenance. The URMD Advisory Committee (URMDAC) will continue to lead the project selection process and to advise the Board on the use of URMD funds. Based on stakeholder feedback and research guidance documented in this paper, URMDAC and LUT may want to consider limiting the application of wide shoulder walkways in favor of

21 NW Leahy/Stark project in West Haven funded by Oregon SRTS; SW 173rd Avenue project in Aloha funded by CDBG.

ATTACHMENT A

walkways with greater separation from vehicular traffic. However, doing so would limit the buying power and reach of the program. A potential compromise is to set maximum traffic volume and speed thresholds for the use of wide-shoulder walkways.

3. Develop an LID matching program in which property owners agree to pay for a portion of the cost of a particular walkway improvement and the County pays for the other portion.

The County has intended to utilize LIDs to build sidewalks since at least 1983, when CDC Section 502-8 (Developed Area Sidewalks) was adopted. That section – still in effect today – gives the Board the authority to create LIDs for sidewalk construction when 51% of affected property owners representing a majority of the project frontage sign a petition in favor. Washington County Revenue and Finance Code (Title 3) also enables this action and further defines four different types of LIDs. Infill walkways would most likely be accomplished by either a Neighborhood LID, “in which the assessments may be levied to pay the actual cost of capital construction benefiting primarily developed properties,” or a Frontage/Off-Site LID, “in which assessments may be levied to pay the actual cost of capital construction of off-site or frontage public improvements benefiting developed or undeveloped properties.22 Each type of LID has a number of requirements set forth in the County Code. While LUT staff found that LIDs for sidewalk construction may not be financially feasible for property owners by themselves, a partially subsidized LID program could provide just enough leverage to be financially viable for property owners. Such a program was implemented by the Portland Development Commission in the Lents neighborhood of southeast Portland. In that case, property owners covered half of the cost of the sidewalk improvements, while city urban renewal funds covered the other half. Washington County could consider using Gain Share, URMD or other funds for its contribution to such a program. County Road Fund cannot be used to match LID funds. Early and throughout the process, care must be taken address cash flow issues and potential cost overruns. If a project is intended to be built immediately, the county would have to finance the project up front.

4. Initiate a ballot measure that would create either a new County Service District or an

additional assessment under the existing Urban Road Maintenance District for the purposes of funding a specific set of identified walkway projects.

The Board could ask UUWC voters to approve a new County Service District (CSD) or an increased assessment in the county’s existing Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD, which is legally a CSD) to fund walkway projects. Identifying a specific list of projects is a best practice that often improves the odds of transportation-related ballot measures.

22 Washington County Code 3.20.040(A)

ATTACHMENT A

An additional $0.25 per $1,000 assessed value under URMD would generate approximately $4 million annually, based on recent URMD revenue figures.23 This would essentially double the URMD assessment. For a home with an assessed value24 of $200,000, the annual payment of $49 to URMD would increase to $99. Staff would work closely with URMD Advisory Committee prior to bringing any proposals to the Board. A new CSD, or multiple CSDs, could be applied in a more targeted fashion, both geographically and financially. Geographically, a CSD could be applied to specific neighborhoods where sidewalk/walkway completion is low, such as Aloha or Metzger. In this case, the residents that are being taxed receive the benefits of those revenues. However, limiting the assessment area also limits the revenue. Multiple CSDs would provide the opportunity to establish different tax rates based on median household income or other factors. For example, a CSD for sidewalks in Aloha-Reedville could have a lower tax rate than a CSD for sidewalks north of Sunset Highway. This would help alleviate concerns about a regressive tax structure, but may not be universally popular.

23 The URMD property tax, which is $0.2456 per $1,000 assessed value, generated $4.1 million in FY 2013-14, according to the URMD FY 13-14 Annual Report. 24 Assessed values of residential properties in Washington County tend to be approximately 70% of market values due to statewide ballot measures in the 1990s.

ATTACHMENT A

SOUTHWESTService Enhancement Plan

Final Report

ATTACHMENT B

December 2015

Dear Reader,

I am proud to present the Southwest Service Enhancement Plan, with recommendations to get you and your fellow community members where you need to go. This report provides a vision for future TriMet service in the Southwest portion of the region (for other areas, see www.trimet.org/future).

The vision for future service in the Southwest Service Enhancement Plan is the culmination of many hours of meetings with our customers, neighborhood groups, employers, social service providers, educational institutions and stakeholders. Community members provided input through open house meetings, surveys, focus groups, and individual discussions. Extra effort was put into getting input from the entire community, especially youth, seniors, minorities, people with low incomes, and non-English speakers. Demographic research was used to map common trips, and cities and counties provided input on future growth areas. Lastly, TriMet staff coordinated closely with Metro’s South-west Corridor Plan process to ensure that both efforts complement one another and expand transit in the southwest part of our region.

The final result is a plan that calls for bus service that connects people to more places, more often, earlier, and later. The plan also recommends improvements to the sidewalks and street crossings to support transit service and new community-job shuttles to serve areas that lack transit service because the demand is too low for traditional TriMet service to be economically viable.

The service enhancement plans are not just visions of the future, but commitments to grow TriMet’s system. This commitment was recently bolstered by employers’ support for an increase in TriMet’s payroll tax rate. This new revenue will be used to implement recommendations from the service enhancement plans. New improvements to the system will begin in March 2016.

In the following months, TriMet will be revising visions for Eastside, Southeast and North/Central Service Enhancement Plans based on data analysis and discussions with input from riders, neighborhoods, employers, social service providers, educational institutions, cities, and counties. Those visions, together with the Southwest and Westside Service Enhancement Plans, will represent a new era of growth for the TriMet system. While you read through this plan, I hope you are as excited about the future of transit in the Portland Metro Region as we are.

Regards,

TriMet General Manager

Line 12, 43, & Orange Line MAX Rider

A note from

TriMet GeneralManager,

Neil McFarlane

ATTACHMENT B

3

Over the past year and a half, TriMet has engaged the communities of Durham, King City, Lake Oswego, SW Portland, Tigard, Tualatin, Sherwood, and West Linn in a process to develop the Southwest Service Enhance-ment Plan (SWSEP), a long-range vision to improve bus service and bus stops, and to recommend pedestrian improvements.

The SWSEP outlines a future vision for transit in the Southwest part of the metro region (all areas in the TriMet Service District south of Scholls Ferry Road to the Willamette River and not including Downtown Portland). The vision was developed with the help of dozens of partner organizations (cities, counties, business groups, social service providers, etc.), existing transit riders, and the general public. The plan aligns future improvements with current and projected needs by recommending better transit connections, improved frequency, safer pedestrian facilities, and increased access to jobs and community services. The plan also highlights opportunities to partner with local cities, Washington County and the private sector to make it easier for people to reach and use transit. The plan identifies:

• near-term service enhancements that can be made with little or no additional cost

• long-term service improvements and expansion when revenues allow

• opportunities for partnering with public and private sectors to improve access to transit including walk-ing and biking to the bus and WES.

The plan supports the Southwest communities in the following ways:

Getting to Work: As employment grows throughout the region, long gone is the day when Downtown Portland was the only concentration of jobs. While there will always be strong demand for fast, frequent transit service to Downtown Portland, there is also more need than ever for transit service within South-west, particularly in employment areas with a large number of entry level and middle wage jobs such as:

• the Tualatin Industrial area

• 72nd Avenue employment area and the Tigard Triangle

• Kruse Way/Meadows Road

• the Hillsboro/Beaverton employment areas

Supporting Southwest Corridor: The Southwest Corridor Project is a community development project that will leverage public investments to make land use and transportation improvements in the Southwest part of the region. Led by Metro, our regional planning agency, a primary focus of the project is the develop-ment of high capacity transit connecting Portland, Tigard, and Tualatin. TriMet and Metro have closely coordinated on the Southwest Corridor Project and the Southwest Service Enhancement Plan. Together, the projects aim to reduce congestion, improve connections and serve those with limited transportation options.

Enabling Heath, Research, Education and Job Training: Home to four hospitals (OHSU Hospital, Dornbecher Children’s Hospital, Shriners Children’s Hospital, and the VA Medical Center) Marquam Hill is the largest transit destination in the SWSEP study area. With limited parking for students and employ-ees, transit plays a vital role in facilitating access to and from Marquam Hill. OHSU’s expansion to South Watefront includes the Center for Health and Healing and the Collaborative Life Sciences Building, with future developments still to come.

The Sylvania campus is the largest of Portland Community College’s (PCC) four major campuses, serving over 26,000 students per year. Students, faculty and staff from throughout the metro area attend PCC Sylvania. However, the campus sits atop a hill, has constrained parking, and is surrounded by single-family homes, creating conflicts with transit operations by single-family homes, creating potential conflicts with transit operations. Yet, TriMet bus service to the campus is well used, as is the inter- campus shuttle provided by PCC to its students.

ATTACHMENT B

4

Lewis & Clark College has over 5,100 students, faculty, & staff. Though most students live on campus, the college offers a free shuttle to Down-town Portland to supplement TriMet’s service to the campus. Parking at the college is currently maxed out.

Communities of Tomorrow: Several areas on the edge of the region are being planned for large-scale development. These areas will accommodate future housing and employment. These areas include:

• Basalt Creek: Only in the concept planning phase, Basalt Creek will host a mix of light industrial employment and residential development on vacant land between Tualatin and Wilsonville. Work will begin soon on an extension of SW 124th Avenue to Tonquin Road, which will be a catalyst for future development in the area.

• River Terrace: Located west of Bull Mountain in Tigard, River Terrace will predominately be composed of single family homes with a small commercial corridor east of SW 175th Avenue.

• South Cooper Mountain: Technically outside SWSEP study area, South Cooper Mountain will impact both Beaverton and Tigard significantly. The plan calls for a mix of residential and commercial development and a new Beaverton School District high school located at Scholls Ferry Road and Roy Rogers/175th Avenue.

Southwest’s StoryTransit in SouthwestFrom early town plats centered on train stations in Tualatin, Tigard, and Lake Oswego to the Southern Pacific Red Electric interurban rail network, transit service has helped define the southwest communities for many years. Still today, transit is very much a vital part of life in this part of the region with 24 bus lines (one of which is Frequent Service; three of which are express/limited stop lines), the region’s only commuter rail line (WES), one streetcar line (NS Line), an aerial tram, four transit centers and over 2,000 TriMet-dedicated and shared-use park and ride spaces.

Yet, in some ways, the transit service hasn’t changed much in Southwest. The core of the transit service was originally designed decades ago to get workers to and from the central business district with 14 of 24 bus lines and the streetcar line serving Downtown Portland and five bus lines serv-ing Marquam Hill – leaving only five bus lines and WES serving southwest communities without going to Downtown Portland or Marquam Hill.

“With over 90% of our employees commuting in and out of Tualatin every day, transit will play a huge roll in reducing congestion. For the first time ever, Tualatin Sherwood road will have a new bus line starting in 2016.”— Linda Moholt,

CEO, Tualatin Chamber of Commerce

ATTACHMENT B

5

TriMet’s Future: Back on Stable Financial FootingIn October, 2014, TriMet and the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757 worked together to approve a new labor contract that places the agency on a sustain-able financial path moving forward. The new contract continues to provide a robust compensation package for TriMet’s employees while also ensuring long-term, fiscal health for the agency. As a result, TriMet will be able to focus future revenue growth on expansion of services and maintenance. Additionally, the contract allows for certainty in TriMet’s future plans and begins a new, more collaborative chapter for TriMet and the ATU.

Additionally, 11 bus lines and WES only operate in the morning and afternoon peak hours and don’t provide weekend service. As the region has grown, the need for all-day transit service to areas other than Downtown Portland or Marquam Hill has grown as well.

Where the Jobs AreThe Southwest part of the region has a diversity of job centers ranging from white collar jobs in the Kruse Way/Meadows Road and Lincoln Center areas to middle wage jobs in the Tualatin Industrial Area and the 72nd Avenue employment corridor. Southwest residents are also drawn to jobs on Marquam Hill, in Downtown Portland and the Silicon Forest. Furthermore, the area has seen significant retail job growth in Bridgeport Village, Downtown Tualatin, and Progress Ridge in addition to the long established retail centers of Washington Square, Sherwood Town Center, Hillsdale, Multnomah Village, and along Barbur Boule-vard/Highway 99W. Finally, nearly all the communities in the southwest part of the region are actively pursuing Downtown development plans which will bring additional employment and vitality in Downtown communities throughout the area.

Regional Changes Impact Southwest Several trends will impact Southwest and the entire region over the next 20 years, including:

Growth: According to Metro’s 2014 Urban Growth Report, the met-ro area will grow by 400,000 residents and 260,000 jobs by 2035.

• Residential growth will occur by way of infill development along corridors and in centers, while available land for new single- family residential development will remain in the suburbs (e.g., River Terrace, South Cooper Mountain, Basalt Creek).

• Among the fastest growing industries in the region are professional services and manufacturing/distribution. Large parcels for manufacturing and distribution are primarily available on the edges of the region, especially in Southwest (e.g., Tualatin Industrial Area, Basalt Creek), while professional services are accommodated in centers and corridors (e.g., Lincoln Center, Kruse Way, town centers).

ATTACHMENT B

6

Transit will become increasingly important as this growth increases traffic congestion.

Changing Income Levels: According to the 2014 Urban Growth Report, much of the Southwest part of the region experienced a drop in the median family income between 2000 and 2008-12. This has resulted in a greater mix of incomes in Southwest and a greater demand for transit services.

Community of Color and Language Diversity: Washington County has:

• a higher percentage of Asian or Pacific Islander residents (8.6%) compared to the state (3.7%),

• a higher percentage of Hispanic or Latino residents (15.7%) compared to the state (11.7%),

• almost double the proportion of foreign-born residents (16.8%) than statewide (9.7%), and

• a higher percentage of residents speaking a language other than English at home (22.7%) compared to the state (14.3%).1

Because communities of color and language diversity populations often rely on TriMet, these changes in growth and demographics illustrate a growing demand for more and better transit service in the southwest communities

1Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014, A-En-grossed Ordinance 768, Exhibit 4

Transit into the Future: Southwest CorridorThe region can expect to see a significant increase in traffic congestion as the population grows substan-tially over the next two decades. Traffic congestion not only impacts people’s lives by adding time to their travels and worsening air quality, but it also imposes an economic cost as companies can’t deliver their goods to customers and workers can’t get to their jobs, stunting the region’s ability to grow economical-ly. Increased congestion will be especially true along the major corridors connecting Downtown Portland to the surrounding suburban communities. Many of these corridors have already received investments in high capacity transit to help deal with congestion—Highway 99E, Highway 84, Highway 26W, Interstate 5 North, Interstate 205. However, the Highway 99W/Interstate 5 South corridor has yet to receive a high capacity transit investment, and is feeling the strain of the rapidly increasing number of vehicles on the road, especially as the economy has recovered from the recession. Consequently, the Southwest Corridor Plan was envisioned as a means to comprehensively address congestion in this part of the region.

Metro is leading the Southwest Corridor Planning pro-cess with help from TriMet, Washington County, ODOT, and the cities of Tigard, Tualatin, Sherwood, and Portland. The project aims to leverage major infrastructure investments—predominantly a high capacity transit line—to also make improvements to roads, trails, sidewalks, crossings, and bikeways. With help from project staff, the Project Steering Committee will decide to pursue either a light rail or a bus rapid transit option. Project staff and the steering committee are also evaluating potential routing options, though the project aims to connect Downtown Tualatin, Bridgeport, Downtown Tigard, the Tigard Triangle, PCC, Barbur Transit Center, Marquam Hill, Portland State University, and the Portland Transit Mall. Some destinations may not be directly served with high capacity transit, but would connect to the line via improved transit and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

In addition to helping reduce vehicle congestion, the Southwest Corridor Plan will help make communities along the alignment safer for transit riders, pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. Moreover, the plan will be the catalyst for downtown development efforts in Tigard and Tualatin, bolstering their civic and economic vibrancy.

Revisions to the Southwest Service Enhancement Plan will be required after the Southwest Corridor Plan is completed to ensure that the two efforts complement one another and provide a complete transit network for the southwest part of the region.

ATTACHMENT B

7

The Southwest Service Enhancement ProcessThe process for developing recommendations for Southwest’s transit future included significant outreach to residents and businesses, data mapping, and conversations with cities and counties about future growth.

Community Outreach: TriMet staff reached out to community members in a myriad of ways including surveys, community workshops, special events, individual stakeholder meetings, newspaper articles, neighborhood meetings, and focus group discussions. Participants included existing transit riders, neigh-borhood associations, employers, business associations and chambers of commerce, jurisdictions, and social service providers. Additional outreach events were held to reach out to traditionally under-represented groups such as low-income, senior, youth, and communities speaking languages other than English (especially Spanish, Vietnamese, and Somali).

Data Analysis and Mapping: TriMet staff mapped concentrations of jobs and housing throughout the study area and were able to connect where people live with where they work. TriMet verified this information with data from the Oregon Household Activity Survey (OHAS) provided by Metro. TriMet also mapped data based on equity factors such as minority, low-income, and limited English proficiency households in the study area. This data was also used to ensure that outreach was provided to traditionally underrepresented communities.

Future Growth: Individual jurisdictions best understand where future growth will occur in the next 20 years. TriMet spoke with elected leaders and city and county staff to better understand where and how southwest communities will grow in the future. City and county plans for growth were taken into account when developing the SWSEP recommendations.

An initial Draft Vision for future transit service was developed using the information gathered via the methods outlined above.

“I appreciate that instead of asking a smart and brilliant engineer they asked the public to help solve the problem. They took our ideas, which are like uncut and un-polished pieces of gems that are hidden inside of a stone, and made them into something of beauty and value.”

— Tyra Tanaka, College Student

ATTACHMENT B

8

It was then released to the public with a survey asking for input on the recommendations contained within the Draft Vision. The Draft Vision was then revised and re-released to the public as the Refined Draft Vision, again with a survey. Last tweaks were made based on input received and a Final Vision was developed.

TriMet will begin implementing the service improvements called for in this vision during its annual service plan process, with each year’s en-hancements leading toward the long-term vision.

The vision was made flexible enough to take maximum advantage of the future Southwest Corridor Project, regardless of its final mode and alignment.

Final VisionThe SWSEP Final Vision addresses four key needs:

1. Transit ConnectionsThe existing transit network is historically oriented towards trips to Downtown Portland during the rush hours. Many job centers outside the Downtown core are not connected with other suburban residential areas where many employees live. In addition, some lines have indirect routes and could benefit from streamlining and some lines that overlap could be moved to serve areas that lack bus service.

Opportunities for ActionWe’d like to realign bus routes to provide more connections between suburban residential communities and suburban employment centers and streamline routes and fill service gaps.

New Destination for SW Vermont Street Service (Line 1)

Eliminate the low-ridership, residential loop and serve Washington Square via Shattuck, giving the line a regional destination that can support midday, evening and weekend trips, improving service for riders along the line.

Downtown Lake Oswego to King City (Line 36)

Extend the South Shore Boulevard line from the Tualatin Park & Ride to King City via 72nd Avenue and Durham to improve east-west connections between Lake Oswego, Tualatin, Tigard, and King City, and add trips. Extend the line to Jean Way to better serve businesses in the Lake Oswego Commerce Center.

Downtown Lake Oswego to Kruse Way, Tigard TC, and Progress Ridge/Murrayhill (Line 37)

Change the Lake Grove bus line to serve Downtown Lake Oswego, Kruse Way, Tigard Transit Center, Progress Ridge and Murray Hill to improve east-west connections between Tigard and Lake Oswego. Add midday, evening, and weekend trips. Replace service in Lake Grove with an extension of Line 44.

New Service to Wilson High School, Bonita Road and McDonald Street (Line 38)

Change the Boones Ferry Road line to serve Wilson High School and Burlingame to help students get to school. Change route to serve Bonita, McDonald and Tigard Transit Center to improve east-west connections in Tigard. Provide all-day service in Mountain Park with an extension of Line 44.

Service Enhancements on Lines 47 and 48 Show Ridership GainsIn Fall 2013, TriMet implemented routing and frequency changes to Lines 47-Baseline/ Evergreen and 48-Cornell as called for in the West-side Service Enhancement Plan (serving Beaverton, Hillsboro, Forest Grove, and Corneilus). Between Fall 2012 and Fall 2015, average weekday ridership increased by 62% on Line 47 and 106% on Line 48.

ATTACHMENT B

9

Mt TaborPark

Powell ButteNature Park

WillametteNationalCemetary

Oaks

Bottom

Wildlife

Refuge

Delta Park

Tryon

Creek

State

Park

GabrielPark

Council Crest

Tualatin HillsNature Park

HMTRecreationComplex

Mt TalbertNature Park

F or e

s t P ar k

Blue Lake

GlennOtto

Mary S YoungState Park

MeldrumBar

CookPark

JacksonBottom

WetlandsPreserve

Tualatin RiverNational Wildlife

Refuge

HillsboroStadium

"H

"H

"H

"H

"H

"H

"H"H

"H"H

"H

"H

"H

"H

"H

"H

Shriners

Doernbecher

VA Med Center

OHSU

Providence St VincentProvidence St Vincent

Tuality Community

Legacy Meridian Park

Willamette Falls

Kaiser Sunnyside

Providence MilwaukieProvidence Milwaukie

Legacy Good Samaritan

Legacy Emanuel

Providence Portland

Vibra Specialty Hospital

Adventist Medical Center Legacy Mt Hood

"HKasier

Westside

"L

"L

"L"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"L

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S"S

"S"S

"S"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S "S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S"S

"S

"S"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

"SGlencoe HS

Liberty HS

PCC - Rock Creek

Westview HS

OHSU West Campus

Sunset HS

Roosevelt HS

University of Portland

De La Salle NorthCatholic HS

Jefferson HS

PCC - Cascade

Concordia University

Grant HS

NAYA Family Center

Madison HS

MHCCMaywood

Parkrose HS

Benson HS

Central Catholic HS

Multnomah University

Portland Adventist Academy

David Douglas HS

Reynolds HS

Mt Hood Community College

Gresham HS

Centennial HS

SpringwaterTrail HS

"SSam Barlow HS

Cleveland HS

Reed College

Warner Pacific College

PCC - Southeast

La Salle HS

CCC - Harmony

Clackamas HS

Putnam HS

Gladstone HS

Marylhurst University

West Linn HS

ClackamasCommunityCollege Oregon City HS

Riverdale HS

Lewis & Clark Law School

Lewis & Clark College

Lake Oswego HS

PCC - Sylvania

Westside Christian HS

Lakeridge HS

Tualatin HS

Wilsonville HS

Sherwood HS

Tigard HS

Southridge HS

Jesuit HSBeaverton HS

Aloha HS

Century HS

Hillsboro HS Franklin HS

Wilson HS

"S

Catlin Gabel

"S Milwaukie HS

"S Portland WaldorfPortland Waldorf

"S Walla Walla University

"SValley Catholic HS

C o l u m b i a R i v e r

W i l l a me t t e R

i v e r

L a k e

O s w e g o

Hillsboro

BeavertonGresham

Vancouver

Fairview

WoodVillage Troutdale

Boring

DamascusHappyValley

Oregon City

West Linn

Gladstone

Milwaukie

Lake Oswego

Wilsonville

Sherwood

Tualatin

King City

Tigard

Hatfield Government Center

Tuality Hospital/SE 8th AveTuality Hospital/SE 8th Ave

Washington/SE 12th Ave

Fair Complex/Hillsboro AirportFair Complex/Hillsboro Airport

HawthornFarm

Orenco/NW 231st AveOrenco/NW 231st Ave

Quatama/NW 205th AveQuatama/NW 205th Ave

Willow Creek/SW 185th AveTransit CenterWillow Creek/SW 185th AveTransit Center

Elmonica/SW 170th AveElmonica/SW 170th Ave

Merlo Rd/SW 158th AveMerlo Rd/SW 158th Ave

Beaverton CreekBeaverton Creek

Beaverton Transit CenterBeaverton Transit Center

Washington Park

Hall/Nimbus

Tigard Transit CenterTigard Transit Center

Tualatin

Wilsonville

Albina/MississippiAlbina/Mississippi

Overlook ParkOverlook Park

N PrescottN Prescott

N KillingsworthN Killingsworth

Rosa ParksRosa Parks

N Lombard Transit CenterN Lombard Transit Center

Kenton/N DenverKenton/N Denver

Delta Park/VanportDelta Park/Vanport

Expo CenterExpo Center

Hollywood/NE 42ndTransit CenterHollywood/NE 42ndTransit Center

NE 60th

NE 82ndNE 82nd

Gateway/NE 99th Transit CenterGateway/NE 99th Transit Center

Parkrose/Sumner Transit CenterParkrose/Sumner Transit Center

Cascades

Mt Hood Ave

PortlandInternationalAirport

SE Main StSE Main St

SE Division St

SE Powell Blvd

SE Holgate Blvd

Lents Town Center/SE Foster RdLents Town Center/SE Foster Rd

SE Flavel St

SE Fuller Rd

Clackamas Town Center Transit Center

E 102nd E 122nd E 148th E 162nd E 172nd E 181stRockwood/E 188th

Ruby Junction/E 197thRuby Junction/E 197th

Civic DriveCivic DriveGresham City HallGresham City Hall

Gresham Central Transit CenterGresham Central Transit CenterCleveland AveCleveland Ave

Clinton/SE 12th AveClinton/SE 12th Ave

SE 17th Ave& Rhine StSE 17th Ave& Rhine St

SE 17th Ave &Holgate Blvd

SE 17th Ave &Holgate Blvd

SE Bybee BlvdSE Bybee Blvd

SE Tacoma St/Johnson CreekSE Tacoma St/Johnson Creek

Milwaukie/Main StMilwaukie/Main St

SE Park AveSE Park Ave

HillsboroCentral/SE 3rdTransit Center

HillsboroCentral/SE 3rdTransit Center

SunsetTransit CenterSunsetTransit Center

Washington SquareTransit CenterWashington SquareTransit Center Barbur Transit CenterBarbur Transit Center

Millikan WayMillikan Way

Beaverton CentralBeaverton Central

SPRINGWATER

SANDY

GLISAN

CORN

ELIU

S PASS

HOLCOMB

PRESCOTT

DENNEY

WALKER

HALSEY

KILLINGSWORTH

MIL

WA

UKI

E

PALM

BLA

D

ALLEN

STRAWBERRY

CLATSOP

MARINE

BONITA

122N

D

148T

H

WASHINGTON

BETH

AN

Y

SCHOLLSFERRY

WILLAMETTE FALLS

CORNELL

185T

H

DIVISION

KING

CARMAN

FOSTER

SAGERT

MA

CADAM

NICOLAI

MAIN

PORTL

AND

WITCH HAZEL

JEAN

MAPLE LANE

BERTHA

KAISER

SUNNYSIDE

BLANKENSHIP

MT

SCOTT

WEST UNION

SALA

MO

FORSYTHE

MONROE

92N

D

BEAVERCREEK

IDLEMAN

76TH

82N

D

FISCHERSMILL

HUBBARD

HA

RDIN

G

MULTNOMAH

BAKER

SFE

RRY

PALMQUIST

BRA

DLE

Y

172N

D

EVERGREEN

5TH

CULL

Y

1ST

EASTMAN

MCVEY

BASELINE

AMBERWOOD

CLACKAMAS

BURNSIDE

HIGH

JENNIFER

COURTNEY

KING

ALOC

LEK

TACOMA

RUSK

CLATSOP

BELL

VERMONT

JENNIN

GS

HO

GA

N

DA

RT MOUTH

OST

MA

N

223R

D

LAWNFIELD

KELSO

TUALATIN SHERWOOD

49TH

DIVI SION

42N

D

HARMONY

SUNSET

RAILROAD

TAYLORS FERRY

ROSEMONT

CONCORD

BA

THIESSEN

SOUTH

END

FULL

ER

POWELL VALLEY

CLACKAMAS RIVER

SANDY

HIDD E N

SPRI N

GS

42N

D

MA

IN

JOHN

SON

92ND

ALDERCREST

34TH

KRUSE WAY

ARLINGTON

62N

D

S TU

CK I

CAPPS

112T

H

VAUGHN

HOLME S

242N

D

111T

H

222N

D

JENKINS

TANN

LER

PARTLOW

FREMONT

OAK

SWA

N

LAKE

BURG

ARD

A

FRONT

DURHAM

112T

H

WILLAMETTE

125T

H

MATHER

160T

H

DAVIS

190T

H

13TH

WES

TERN

STA

NLE

Y

POWELL

HIG

HLAND

ROOTS

C HERRY PARK

BUTLER

HUNZIKER

LOMBARD

STA

NLE

Y

82N

D

SAMUELS

POWELL

143R

D

APP

ERS

ON

LUSTED

LAIDLAW

HEIPLE

MCDONALD

BROCKMAN

GRONLUND

HILL

BORGES

SANDY

TOW

LE

JACK

S ON

SCH

OO

L

SPRINGVILLE

LOM

BARD

ROSEDALE

SUNSHINE

VALLEY

THAYER

HORNECKER

AM

ISIG

GER

HA

LL

REDLAND

33RD

33RD

CEDA

R

HILLS

181S

T

GRE

ENBU

RG

BARBUR

82ND

238T

H

162N

D16

2ND

282N

D

GLE

NCO

E

207TH

32N

D

257T

H

LELAND

MU

RRA

Y

82N

D

97TH

LAKE

SKYLINE

WEBSTER

SKYLINE

OATFIELD

HIL

LSBO

RO

BROO

KW

OOD

BRO

OKW

OO

D

GAARDE

RE

GNER

231S

T

242N

D

145T

H

152N

D

ROBERTS

TELFORD

HATTAN

158T

H

SOUTH SHORE

57TH

GREELEY

GRE

ELEY

LIN

WO

OD

135T

H

CASON

GERMANTOWN

209T

H

209TH

BOO

NES

FERR

Y

28TH

130T

H

STEV

ENS

170T

H

RIVER

KAN

E

LIN

N

RIVER

RIVE

R

147T

H

136T

H

23RD

132N

D

BAKE

R

20TH

72N

D

182N

D

KERR

RICH

EY132N

D

272N

D

162N

D

142N

D

STRO

WBR

IDG

E

C LA

RKH

ILL

FERG

USO

N

THOMPSON

198T

H

HOLLY

HOLL

Y

232N

D

TILE FLAT

TUALATIN

DOWTY

EADEN

ELLIGSEN

BOECKMAN

IRONMOUNTAIN

SUNSET

NYBERG

PATTON

LEBEAU

STAF

FORD JOHNSON

BORLAND

WES

TVIE

W

WALUGA

TOOZE

45TH

EDY

CHAPMAN

RIDDER

GRE

EN

WA Y

RIGERT

NY

35TH

GREENTREE

FOSB

ERG

ROYCE

BEEFBEND

MELROSE

DAY

CAMERON

COR

NEL

L

HOMESTEADER

HART

150T

H

AVERY

BULL MOUNTAIN

ELSN

ER

KRUGER

WEIR

STEPHENSON

BELL

BROOKMANSCHAEFFER

ADVANCE

KNAUS

TERWILLIG

ER

PILK

ING

TON

PARKER

65TH

PETE

SMOUNTAIN

ELW

ERT

BERGIS

GRA

HAM

S

FERR

Y

RO

Y ROGERS

ROY

ROG

ERS

M

CCON

NELL

SHAT

TUCK

45

TH

145T

H

MO

UNTAIN

135T

H

OREGON

AEBI

SCH

ER

NEW

LAN

D

175T

H

62N

D

OVERLOOK

TIED

EMAN

CHILDS

LOMBARD

WILLIS

FESSENDEN

MARINE

COLUMBIA

DEN

VER

GOING

MIS

SISS

IPPI

ALB

INA

COLUMBIA

HALSEY

BELMONT

BURNSIDE

GLISAN

HAWTHORNE

DIVISION

MORRISON

BURNSIDE

STARK

LINCOLN

HOLGATE

POWELL

HAROLDSTEELE

WOODSTOCK

CESA

R E

CH

AVEZ

60TH

50TH

52N

D

DUKE

FLAVEL

72N

D

POWELL

FOSTER

STARK STARKSTARK

BIRD

SDA

LE

PLEA

SAN

T VI

EW

ORIENT

SALT

ZMA

N

119T

H

LEAHY

TAYLOR

MUR

RAY

HAMILTON

CAPI

TOL

TAYLORS

FERRY

17TH

LINN

JOHNSON CREEK

82N

D

129T

H

122N

D

82ND

OAKGROVE

MCLOUGHLIN

ROETHE

MOLALLAHWY 99E

WARNER PARROTT

CENTR

AL P

OINT

9TH5TH

7TH

16TH

JACK

SON

WILLAM

ETTE

21ST

BROADWAY

ST HELENS

ST HELENS

YEON

ALBERTA

15TH

24TH

15TH

27TH

PRESCOTT

SHAVER

102N

D

122N

D

SAN RAFAEL

148T

H

BEAVERTON-HILLSDALE HWY

HALL

BOONES FERRY

LAKEVIEW

BRYA

NT

COUNTRY CLUB

VIST

A

121S

T

MU

RRAY

TUALATIN VALLEY HWY

BASELINE

15TH

25TH SH

UTE

CORNELL

CORN

ELIU

S PA

SS

BARNES

PACIFIC HWY

SCHOLLS SHERWOOD

EVERGREEN

BRONSON

HWY 212 HWY 224

HWY 224

AIRPORT

GRA

ND

MA

RTIN

LU

THER

KIN

G JR

WEIDLERHALSEY

DIVISION

POWELL

UMATILLA

CANYON

BUXT

ON

TRO

UTD

ALE

45TH

REX

185T

H

FARMINGTON

29TH

GUAM

THURMAN

TEAL

CHANNEL

BASIN

MCLO

UG

HLIN

32N

D

SCHOLLS

FERRY

80TH

FERRY

BOONES

HWY 26

35TH

ROSE

SACRAMENTO

14TH

30TH

21ST

LAGOON

68TH

LOCUST

HALL

PARK

229T

H

ARC

TIC

OLESO

N GARDEN HOME

BARNES

KAISER

WALNUT

TC

TCTC

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

!̀

!b

%d

Ig

AÚ

Ig

!̀

%d

%d

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� � � �

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

Lake OswegoTransit CenterLake OswegoTransit Center

Washington Park

SunsetTransit Center

Beaverton Transit Center

Oregon City Transit CenterOregon City Transit Center

Beaverton

SE Park AveSE Park Ave

Milwaukie/Main StMilwaukie/Main St

Service in Westside SEP Areais displayed as proposed future routes

Rail ServiceFrequent Service

Standard Service

Proposed new bus service

Rush-Hour Service

Bus Service

NORTH0 1 2

Miles

Transit Center

Secure Bike Parking

Park & Ride

LibraryL

HospitalH

High School or CollegeS

Landmarks

Community/Jobs ConnectorService Area

�� Proposed High CapacityTransit Service

MAX Green Line

MAX Blue Line

MAX Red Line

MAX Orange LineSeptember 2015

MAX Yellow Line

WES Commuter Rail

Southwest Service Enhancement Plan Vision for Future ServiceATTACHMENT B

10

Southwest Hills to Hillsdale, Lewis & Clark/Collinsview (Line 39)

Merge existing Lines 39 and 51 to serve Terwilliger, Capitol, Sunset, and Dosch, connecting Lewis & Clark College/Collinsview, Hillsdale, Southwest Hills and Downtown Portland. Add midday, evening, and weekend trips.

Downtown Tualatin, Lake Grove, PCC Sylvania, and Downtown Portland (Line 44)

Extend existing PCC Sylvania service to provide all day service from Downtown Portland to Mountain Park, Lake Grove, Bridgeport Village, Durham, and Downtown Tualatin.

Garden Home, to Denny Road, and Downtown Beaverton (Line 45)

Change the Garden Home Line to provide new service to Denny Road and Downtown Beaverton. Add trips.

Council Crest to Downtown Portland (Line 51)

Due to low ridership, create a single line serving Council Crest and run during the weekday commute hours only.

New Service on Shattuck Road (Line 55)

Due to low ridership, change the Hamilton bus line to connect the Southwest Hills to Downtown Portland via Hamilton, Shattuck, Patton and Vista.

South Cooper Mountain to Progress Ridge, Washington Square, and Washington Park MAX Station (Line 56)

Extend the Scholls Ferry Road line to provide new service to Murrayhill, Progress Ridge, and the future South Cooper Mountain community. Provide new service on Scholls Ferry Road and the Washington Park MAX Station.

Hillsdale to Marquam Hill (Line 65)

Connect Marquam Hill, Hillsdale and Lewis & Clark College/Collinsview via Terwilliger, and Palatine Hill. Provide all day and weekend service between Marquam Hill and Hillsdale.

South Beaverton to Tigard Transit Center (Line 67)

Extend Line 67 from the Merlo Road/SW 158th Avenue MAX Station to provide new north-south service to South Beaverton via 170th Avenue,

“OHSU is building a world class campus for healing, teaching and discovery, dedicated to improving the health of Oregonians. Transit is a key part of mak-ing this campus work in South Waterfront’s urban environment.”

— Brian Newman, Associate Vice President, Campus Planning

ATTACHMENT B

11

Brockman, and 121st Avenue. Connect to Tigard via Gaarde and Pacific Highway.

New Service to Metzger and Allen Boulevard (Line 78)

Provide new north-south service on Hall Boulevard north of Highway 99W and connect with jobs in the Raleigh West employment area north of Allen Boulevard.

South Beaverton Express via I-5 (Line 92)

Connect Murrayhill, Progress Ridge, Washington Square and Downtown Portland via Scholls Ferry, Multnomah, and Interstate 5, providing new coverage.

New Service on Salamo Road

Create a new line during weekday commuter hours only connecting residents to West Linn’s Willamette commercial area, City Hall, and the Lake Oswego Tran-sit Center.

New Service to Sellwood

The development of the Southwest Corridor Project would allow for a new bus connection between Southwest Portland and Sellwood. One possiblity for this connection could be an extension of the Taylors Ferry Road line (Line 43) across the Sellwood Bridge connecting Washington Square, Barbur Transit Center, Sellwood, and the SE Tacoma Street/Johnson Creek MAX Station (see map on page 9). However, other scenarios may exist for connecting Southwest Port-land with Sellwood. In the coming years, TriMet will work with the Southwest Portland communities to determine which bus line should connect with Sellwood once the Southwest Corridor Project is built.

New Service on Tualatin-Sherwood Road and SW 72nd Avenue

Create a new line connecting to jobs in the Sherwood Town Center, Tualatin Industrial Area, Downtown Tualatin/WES Station, Bridgeport Village, 72nd Avenue, the Tigard Triangle, Downtown Tigard, and the Tigard Transit Center.

New Service on Pacific Highway and SW 124th Avenue

Create a new line connecting homes and jobs in the future Basalt Creek community with the Tigard Transit Center via SW 124th Avenue and Pacific Highway.

2. FrequencyFrequency is a prime concern for transit users. Frequen-cy equals convenience, and more frequent service puts fewer restrictions on riders’ travel. Because waiting is a part of transit travel time, frequency can be as, or even more important, than speed of travel on the bus. Some bus lines in the Southwest communities operate with such insufficient frequency, making them unattractive to a broad range of riders. Potential customers are deterred from riding transit if they fear missing their bus and having to wait a long time for the next one to arrive. Frequent Service Lines eliminate this concern because they arrive every 15 minutes or better most of the day, every day. This means the average wait if a rider doesn’t check the schedule is seven to eight minutes.

Opportunities for ActionExpand the Frequent Service bus network and work with cities and counties to deploy transit priority treatments, like signal timing and bus lanes.

New Frequent Service Bus LinesMaintain and expand the Frequent Service Line net-work, upgrading the highest ridership bus lines to 15 minute frequency most of the day. Better frequency on the following lines would significantly improve service to Portland, Tigard, Tualatin, Beaverton, Durham, Lake Oswego, and West Linn.

Barbur Boulevard (Line 12)

TriMet’s commitment to improved transit service in the Southwest part of the region includes the restoration of Frequent Service on Barbur Boulevard/Highway 99W, which was completely restored to pre-recession service levels in Fall 2015.

ATTACHMENT B

12

Highway 43/Macadam Avenue (Line 35)

New Frequent Service between Downtown Portland, Lake Oswego, West Linn and Oregon City to better meet demand in this corridor as future development occurs.

Capitol Highway (Line 44)

Improve the connection for students with new Frequent Service between Downtown Portland and PCC Sylvania via Hillsdale and Multnomah Village.

Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway (Line 54)

New Frequent Service between Downtown Portland, Hillsdale, Raleigh Hills and Beaverton Transit Center to increase transit use in this high volume corridor.

Hall Boulevard/Greenberg Road (Line 76)

New Frequent Service to serve the job centers along the line, including Downtown Beaverton, Washington Square, Downtown Tigard, Bridgeport Village, Downtown Tualatin and Legacy Meridian Park Hospital.

Increase Frequency of Local ServiceAll local bus service in Southwest communities should operate every 15-30 minutes or better during the morning and afternoon commute times whenever possible to keep it attractive to a broad range of users and reduce delay for all riders. Midday service frequency will be determined by demand.

Implement Transit Priority TreatmentsMany riders wish for buses to get them to their destinations faster. Delayed travel time also has a negative impact on reliability. Through-out Portland and in key locations in Gresham, signal technology extends green signals when a bus is running late. On 82nd Avenue in Clackamas, ODOT provides bus-only lane treatments to reduce delay to bus passen-gers. TriMet will be looking to apply similar treatments to the Southwest part of the region to decrease delay and increase reliability.

3. Passing Through Federal Funds forTransit ServicesOften times fixed route transit by TriMet is not economically viable in areas with low-income residents or entry-level jobs, because the number of residents or employees is too few or the street network is under- developed. However, even when TriMet cannot operate transit services, it has a long history of helping economic development opportunities by passing on federal funds to other organizations to operate their own shuttle services to meet the needs of residents and employees.

Opportunities for ActionIn November 2015, Ride Connection, a non-profit transportation provider serving seniors, people with disabilities, and low income popula-tions, began operating the North Hillsboro LINK shuttle between Orenco Station and the North Hillsboro Industrial Area. This service is a response to the significant increase in the number of low-pay, entry level employees in the area that have difficulty getting to work because of the lack of near-by TriMet service. TriMet fixed route bus service was not an economically viable option because the area is still developing. Ride Connection, in partnership with the Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce, the City of

Phasing and partnership opportunitiesImplementation of the Southwest Service Enhancement Plan recommendations will occur incrementally as TriMet’s revenues increase. Among the implementation criteria, favor will be given to service improvements in conjunction with pedestrian and transit priority improvements in the same area. If jurisdictions invest in transit priority treatments, sidewalks, crossings, and paths to get riders to transit, TriMet will work with them to potentially prioritize service enhancements in those areas.

ATTACHMENT B

13

Hillsboro, Washington County, and the State of Or-egon, was able to launch the North Hillsboro LINK shuttle because TriMet is able to pass on state and federal grant funds specifically intended for this type of service. Similar pass through arrangements exist for shuttle services in Tualatin, Swan Island, and Forest Grove.

Other areas in Southwest where TriMet could pass through federal funding to serve low income residents or low paying, entry-level jobs and where fixed route transit service is lacking due to the street network or population size include:

Tualatin-Oregon City

Connect retail jobs at Bridgeport Village and down-town Tualatin with low income residents in Tualatin and downtown Oregon City via Borland and I-205.

King City-Tigard-Beaverton

Connect senior and low income residents in King City with jobs and services in Progress Ridge, Murrayhill, and the future River Terrace and South Cooper Mountain areas.

Sherwood

Connect low income areas on the east side of Sherwood with jobs and services in downtown Sher-wood, the Sherwood Town Center, and the YMCA.

4. Pedestrian/Bike EnvironmentsEvery transit rider walks, uses a mobility device, or rides a bicycle at least a short distance to and from the bus, MAX, or WES. Safe sidewalks, crossings, paths, and bicycle infrastructure are critical to building and sustaining transit ridership. Pedestrian and bike improvements are especially needed in the Southwest part of the region. More than half of all respondents to our survey reported that there is missing side-walk between their homes and the nearest bus stop. Additionally, only 35% of respondents reported having either signalized or other safe crossings between their

home and the nearest bus stop.

Much of the difficulty siting pedestrian and bike im-provements is the result of hilly terrain and the need to provide storm water runoff facilities with improve-ments. Such conditions significantly drive the cost of improvements. This is especially true in Southwest Portland, where the topography can be particularly steep. However, Southwest Portland’s trail network can help ameliorate the challenge of providing access to transit in some areas.

Opportunities for ActionTriMet will continue to partner with local cities, counties and ODOT to improve pedestrian environments. However cities, county and ODOT must also make pedestrian improvements a high priority.

Pedestrian Network Analysis

TriMet’s Pedestrian Network Analysis report (available at www.trimet.org/walk) identifies locations near transit stops where pedestrian improvements are needed (e.g., sidewalk infill, curb ramps, landing pads, and safer crossings using signals or “flashing beacons”, etc.). The report specifically points to needed pedestrian improve-ments in the Hillsdale area, Tigard Transit Center, and Raleigh Hills. Cities, counties, and ODOT can provide access to transit and improve the local quality of life and safety by using the Pedestrian Network Analysis as a blueprint for where and what to include when building safe crossing treatments and sidewalks.

Partnering for pedestrians

TriMet, ODOT, the counties and the Southwest jurisdictions have a strong history of partnerships on pedestrian improvements. The most recent example is seen in the 2015-18 State Transportation Improvement Enhancement Program (STIP Enhance). Administered by ODOT, the STIP Enhance grant program will fund pedestrian improvement projects along Highway 99W, including sidewalk improvements, rapid flashing beacons, and bus stop upgrades. The project came together with TriMet as

ATTACHMENT B

14

Increasing the Reach of Transit with Cycling Connections

More and better bike paths and bike lanes can help to expand the reach of transit, as customers who are combining their transit trip with a cycling trip can more quickly cover a larger distance than by walking or rolling alone. The rolling hills and challenging topography in this area might be a natural deterrent to some, but others do choose to use a bicycle as a means to connect to transit service, especially along facilities like the Fanno Creek Trail, the Tualatin River Greenway and the Willamette River Greenway Trail. TriMet will continue to support safe and comfortable bicycling facilities to reach transit services, provide bike parking at appropriate locations, and work with our partners to promote cycling as a means to increase the reach of transit connecting to employment, commercial and residential areas.

the applicant and matching fund support from TriMet and the cities of Tigard, Tualatin, and Portland, with technical support from ODOT. TriMet will continue to look for opportunities to partner on pedestrian improvement and access to transit projects. However, cities, counties and ODOT must also prioritize safe and comfortable access to transit for this goal to become a reality.

Safe crossings vs. road widening

Roadway widening to accommodate increased traffic conflicts with transit access by making it more difficult to cross the street safely to reach a bus stop. The counties and individual Southwest jurisdictions must continue, in partnership with TriMet, to seek a balance between all means of transportation in order to address current and future challenges.

Making walking easier by making crossings shorter

Because intersection crossings are so important for access to transit and for residents and employees to walk anywhere in Southwest, TriMet encourages cities, counties, and ODOT to re-evaluate standards and existing dimensions of curb radius at intersec-tions. Large curb radii increase crossing distances and invite faster turning speeds for motor vehicles, leaving pedestrians exposed to dangerous interactions with fast-moving vehicles. Consider treatments such as truck aprons to reduce turning radius and crossing distance. Reducing crossing distance can also reduce the amount of time intersections need for each individual signal cycle or traffic movement, potentially reducing delay or at least the perception of delay, to pedestrians and drivers. Cost-effective pilot projects can be implemented using striping or plastic “candle-stick” pylons. The Federal Highway Administrations Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selec-tion System website provides a good starting point for cities and counties considering pedestrian safety improvements (www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE).

Bus stop landing pads

Concrete pads between sidewalks and curbs allow people with mobility devices to board and de-board buses from the sidewalk and encourage transit use from those who can walk or bike to the bus stop. Without the landing pads, riders must either walk through wet, muddy, and potentially unstable surfaces or worse, step into the street itself to get on the bus. The concrete pads provide opportunities to install shelters at stops with high ridership, making riding transit more attractive and competitive with other options.

ATTACHMENT B

15

In Our Rear View MirrorFrequent Service RestorationDuring the Great Recession, TriMet was forced to increase the time between trips on the 13 Frequent Service Bus Lines and MAX. With the improving economy, TriMet has restored service back to pre- recession level. TriMet’s Frequent Service Lines carry more than half of all bus passengers on the system, and MAX carries more than one-third of all TriMet customers. Frequent Service and MAX restoration has been vital in helping people access jobs, reducing congestion, and meeting the region’s adopted land use and air quality goals. With the restoration of all Frequent Service and MAX lines, TriMet now provides more service than it did prior to the recession. Current Frequent Service Bus Lines in Southwest include:

Line 8-Jackson Park/NE 15th Avenue

Line 12-Barbur/Sandy Boulevard

Line 54-Beaverton Hillsdale Highway

Line 56-Scholls Ferry Road

ConclusionAs congestion increases with population and job growth, and as more people rely on transit out of need or choice, TriMet intends to enhance the transit network to meet these increasing demands of the growing southwest communities. TriMet will continue to serve the high demand for transit service to Downtown Portland, but also aims to provide service to neighborhoods, job sites, and other destination between the southwest communities. TriMet is committed to supporting the southwest part of the region by increasing the effectiveness and importance of transit via new or realigned lines, better frequencies and service hours, and new partnerships for innovative service and pedestrian improvements. The Future of Transit will include many more opportunities for Southwest residents to travel throughout the region to jobs, school, shopping, medical care and recreational activities while freeing space on roads for freight and other needs.

ATTACHMENT B

Available in other formats.1150300 • 1/16 • 500

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

Memorandum Date: July 27, 2016 To: Planning Commissioners From: Steve Kelley, Senior Planner RE: Responses to Questions from Commissioner Enloe, Re: Ordinance No. 814 Following are Staff’s responses to Commissioner Enloe’s questions. 1. Is the discussion on whether to become more lenient on when to include sidewalks a result of the

applicants appealing the inclusion of sidewalks under proportionality? Based on the white paper it seems to be the first but I want to make sure I am understanding correctly.

Staff Response: Proposed Ordinance No. 814 address two legislative recommendations from the Walkway Gap Issue Paper:

Recommendation #8: "Clarify or revise conflicting Community Development Code (CDC) sections regarding the circumstances in which public improvements are required." Proposed Ordinance No. 814 addresses this recommendation by amending CDC section 502‐1.4. The proposed amendments clarify that exceptions are only listed in 502‐14.

Recommendation #9 "Amend Article VII of the CDC to exempt from land use review walkway projects that would require additional right‐of‐way but would otherwise meet the requirements of CDC Section 702‐4 (Exempt Projects)." Proposed Ordinance No. 814 addresses this recommendation by adding new section 702‐13.

An issue paper that will address recommendation #7 (Transportation Development Review Procedures for New Development) is under development and is expected to be discussed by the Planning Commission later this year. The issue paper is expected to address (at least partly) questions about proportionality. Recommendations #10 and #11 are outside the ability of staff to advance. The administrative recommendations (#1 through #6) are all at different stages of being addressed by staff.

2. Is the discussion on whether to become more lenient on when to include sidewalks a result of the

applicants appealing the inclusion of sidewalks under proportionality? Or is there something else?

Based on the white paper it seems to be the first, but I want to make sure I am understanding

correctly. – added note – I think maybe my question should be, are Recommendations #8 and #9

resulting from the need to adjust when sidewalks are required as a result of push back on nexus of

proportionality?

ATTACHMENT C

of 3

Staff Response: Proposed Ordinance 814 is not expected to result in more lenient sidewalk requirements. The change to CDC Section 502‐1.4 (Recommendation #8) will address a conflict within the CDC between Section 501‐2 and Section 502‐1. CDC Section 501 requires sidewalks for more than one house, while CDC Section 502 requires sidewalks for more than four houses. The ordinance clarifies that CDC Section 501 applies by removing the conflicting language from CDC Section 502. The intent of this amendment is to strengthen and clarify the sidewalk requirements consistent with the recommendation of the ‘Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area’ Issue Paper. CDC Section 702‐13 (Recommendation #9) will exempt sidewalk capital projects from land use review requirements. Article VII functions as the development review requirements for public transportation projects. New capital construction improvements within unincorporated Washington County must meet the requirements of Article VII. This land use review procedure is beyond the level of review and scrutiny that most public agencies require. The proposed exemption would allow the acquisition of right‐of‐way and development of walkways, sidewalks, bike lanes, trials and other improvements intended to exclusively serve bicycles and pedestrians without an Article VII review. The criteria proposed in the Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area Issue Paper recommendation has been expanded to ensure that multimodal improvements are reviewed appropriately. Walkway improvements are generally minor improvement projects and this exemption is intended to reduce the administrative costs of such improvements. Neither change is intended to addresses concerns regarding proportionality.

3. If the first is true, , can the County develop a white paper or letter from the LUT Director that

addresses a way to assign proportionality? For example, if the development triggers any amount

of new vehicular traffic, could the County issue a standing that it assumes that pedestrian traffic

could also be reasonably assumed? Or if the development adds any additional square footage,

therefore it can accommodate more people, that proportionally its required to provide for all

modes? Something along those lines?

Staff Response: An issue paper on development review procedures is forthcoming and it may address

this issue, proposed Ordinance 814 does not.

4. The white paper references ADA requirements, but it doesn’t clearly provide whether the ADA

requirements provide design requirements IF sidewalks are included, or do the ADA requirements

themselves REQUIRE that sidewalks be included? I’d like more information on this. Check the ADA

code and PROWAG.

Staff Response: In general, ADA requirements are outside the scope of long range planning and are part of design and construction standards. The walkway gap solutions issue paper does not address ADA requirements. The forthcoming issue paper on development procedures is also not expected to address ADA requirements. The Public Rights‐of‐Way Access Guidelines have been reviewed by the both the Engineering and Construction Services division and the Operations and Maintenance division of the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation. Where appropriate, administrative changes to

ATTACHMENT C

of 3

address the revised ADA requirements, are being incorporated into ongoing engineering, construction, operations and maintenance activities.

S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2016 Ord\Ord814_TSP\Testimony\Ord814 Staff Response Enloe.doc

ATTACHMENT C

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: July 27, 2016 To: Planning Commissioners From: Steve Kelley, Senior Planner RE: Responses to Questions from Commissioner Manseau, Re: Ordinance No. 814 Following are Staff’s responses to Commissioner Enloe’s questions. 1. The Walkway Issue Paper Recommendation #8 was for clarification or revision to code to remove

conflict that exempted construction of single family residences or duplexes on "lots of record" from dedication of ROW and constructing 1/2 street improvements along the frontage of the site, but required construction of a sidewalk along the site frontage. How are we working toward elimination of walkway gaps if we allow a complete exemption from any sidewalk requirements for these homes as proposed in this ordinance? Is the some other way to remove conflict without removing the requirement for sidewalk construction?

Staff Response: Proposed Ordinance No. 814 address recommendation #8 from the Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area Issue Paper. Proposed Ordinance No. 814 removes the exemptions from to sidewalk construction in CDC Section 502‐1.4. No new exemptions are created. No requirements for sidewalk construction are eliminated. Proposed Ordinance 814 is not expected to result in more lenient sidewalk requirements.

2. Has dedication of ROW for all development actions to current standards been considered?

Staff Response: An issue paper on addressing transportation development review procedures for new development is forthcoming and it may address partially this issue. Safe driveway access, on‐site local and neighborhood route connections and street lighting are also high priorities along with the dedication of right‐of‐way for Arterial and Collectors.

3. Staff has stated that new "lots of record" are not being created without a requirement for

sidewalk construction. What about the new lot created via Casefile14‐365?

Staff Response: Reviewing Casefile 14‐365 the applicant requested an exemption to sidewalk standards under CDC Section 502‐14. Staff found the proposal did not meet the requirements of CDC Section 502‐14 and denied the exemption to sidewalk construction. On appeal, the hearings officer agreed that the site did not meet the criteria in CDC Section 502‐14. Yet, agreed with the applicant and ruled that the sidewalk would not be required in this case. The final order in this appeal case states on page 12:

ATTACHMENT C

of 3

“Nevertheless, as found above, the sidewalk cannot be required as the proposed 2‐lot partition does not generate any pedestrian traffic. In addition, the evidence presented at the hearing documents the lack of sidewalks in the vicinity of the site, and how the construction of the sidewalk would require removal of a tree that they wish to preserve. The CDC does not take these factors into consideration, and thus they cannot form a basis for approval of this exemption.”

And on page 13: “The proposed partition meets the criteria of Section 502‐14.2A‐C. The criterion of section 502‐14.2.D is not met ... An exception to sidewalks is not warranted because criteria in Section 502‐14.2A.D and E are not met. Despite the fact that the proposal does not meet the exception criteria, as discussed in the findings above, the sidewalk is not being required in this case.”

The casefile and appeal seems to be appropriate role for the hearings officer. The CDC is intended to be followed in the vast majority of circumstances and the hearings process is available to examine the merits of a particular case or circumstance. The hearings officer can apply impartial judgement to determine if there are particular constraints outside the scope of the CDC that merit consideration that staff is otherwise not allowed to apply.

4. From the Community Development Code: Application of the Public Facility and Service Standards shall apply to the Urban Unincorporated Area as follows: 501‐2.2 To all new construction or expansion of an existing structure, except for construction

of a single (one [1] only) detached dwelling unit or duplex on an approved duplex lot

(Section 430‐13.3), or other structures which meet all of the following:

Since code requires the Public Facility and Service Standards to apply to expansion of an existing structure (CDC 501‐2.2), why isn't current planning apply these standards to expansion of existing structures?

Staff Response: The expansion of an existing structure refers to a commercial or industrial expansion. Remodeling of single family residential unit is exempt from public facility requirements. CDC Section 501‐2.2 continues and qualifies the other structures that are exempt as those that meet all of the following:

A. Contains two thousand (2000) square feet or less; B. Does not, in itself, generate more than fourteen (14) vehicle trips per day, as defined by the

Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Information Report; C. Contains no plumbing fixtures, or has less than twelve (12) additional fixtures attached to an

existing, approved septic system or public sewer; and D. Does not pose any unique public health or safety issues.

The intent is that a minor (as defined by the above criteria) expansion of an existing commercial or industrial structure would be exempt from the public facility requirements of Article V. Staff is applying the development review requirements consistently and appropriately.

5. Why is there an exemption from Public Facility and Service Standards allowed for single family

dwellings or duplex‐‐particularly when code apparently requires expansion of an existing single

family dwelling or a duplex to meet the Public Facility and Service Standards?

ATTACHMENT C

of 3

Staff Response: As explained above, this section of the code is not applicable to the expansion of an

existing single family dwelling or duplex.

6. What is the purpose of the exemptions to sidewalk standards found in 502‐14? Is there a

particular neighborhood where sidewalks are not needed?

Staff Response: The construction of sidewalks is needed in all neighborhoods but the implementation on certain local streets may not be practicable. CDC Section 502‐14 establishes the criteria for when sidewalk construction is not considered to be practicable. CDC Section 502‐14 requires the proposed development to proceed through a Type II or Type III procedure and prove that it meets the requirements.

7. Why aren't the exceptions to 1/2 street improvements found in Section 501‐6 used when

determining exemptions to sidewalks? Aren't the provisions is Section 502‐14 redundant and

possibly conflicting with the provisions in 501‐6?

Staff Response: The requirements under CDC Section 501‐6 address all critical and essential services not only sidewalks. A development proposal may be eligible for an exemption from ½ street improvements as described in CDC Section 501‐6.3(C) and yet still required to construct sidewalks under CDC Section 502. This may be particularly true in circumstances where topographic constraints make construction of a roadway impracticable (which is likely due to storm‐water treatment requirements).

8. We seem to be carefully dancing around Nollan/Dolan‐‐trying to sidestep having to address either

the nexus or rough proportionality issues. When will staff research what is being done in other

jurisdictions? Isn't it important for new development to pay for their fair share of impacts on the

transportation infrastructure? Do we need for LR Planning staff to draft an issue paper on options

to address nexus and rough proportionality? Doesn't something need to be done to aid Current

Planning is resolving Nollan/Dolan issues?

Staff Response: Much of this effort is underway and may at least partially be addressed in a forthcoming issue paper addressing transportation development review procedures for new development. This question is outside the scope of proposed Ordinance 814.

S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2016 Ord\Ord814_TSP\Testimony\Ord814 Staff Response Manseau.doc

ATTACHMENT C

Attachment D

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 ∙ [email protected]

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2016

Proposed Ordinance No. 814 ‐ An Ordinance Amending Rural/Natural Resource Plan, the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the Community Development Code (CDC) to Address Transportation‐ Related Issues

Draft Deliberations

Planning Commission (PC) members present: A. Richard Vial, Tegan Enloe, Liles Garcia, Mary Manseau, Anthony Mills, Eric Urstadt, and Matt Wellner. PC members absent: Ed Bartholemy, and Jeff Petrillo. Staff present: Andy Back, Theresa Cherniak, Erin Wardell, Dyami Valentine, Steve Kelley, Anne Kelly, Sambo Kirkman, John Floyd, and Susan Aguilar, Long Range Planning (LRP); Ryan Marquardt, Current Planning; Rick Sanai, County Counsel.

Summary Ordinance No. 814 – Transportation System Planner (TSP) Steve Kelley provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding Ordinance No. 814. Staff discussed background and overview information, as well as answered questions on the various exhibits. Ordinance No. 814 would amend the Comprehensive Framework Plan to the Urban Area, the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, the TSP and the CDC to address transportation‐related issues. Ordinance No. 814 makes housekeeping revisions from past TSP updates. Recommendation Conduct the PC public hearing and recommend the Board adopt Ordinance No. 814 as filed. Next Step September 6, 2016 would be the first Board hearing for this ordinance. Discussion Concerns that sections 501 and 502 are in need of more work.

Planning Commission Deliberations August 3, 2016

Page 2 of 2

Final Vote Commissioner Manseau moved to recommend to the Board adoption of Ordinance No. 814 with engrossments to remove sections relating to 501 and 502. Commissioner Enloe seconded. Vote: 3 – 4. Motion failed.

Commissioner Vote Bartholemy Absent Enloe Yes Garcia Yes Manseau Yes Mills No Petrillo Absent Urstadt No Vial No Wellner No Commissioner Wellner moved to recommend to the Board adoption of Ordinance No. 814 with one engrossment under section 502‐1.4 adding language “or as allowed under section 409‐3.3a.” Commissioner Mills seconded motion. Vote: 5 – 2. Motion passes.

Commissioner Vote Bartholemy Absent Enloe No Garcia Yes Manseau No Mills Yes Petrillo Absent Urstadt Yes Vial Yes Wellner Yes Chair Vial asked staff to inform the Board of potential conflict and/or concerns regarding 501 and 502 and further work by staff needed. End of deliberations.

Attachment E

ATTACHMENT E

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]

July 20, 2016

Individual Notice No. 2016-06

At your request, Long Range Planning is providing you with

Individual Notice No. 2016-06 which describes proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 814.

Ordinance Purpose and Summary

Ordinance No. 814 proposes amendments to the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, the Transportation System Plan and the Community Development Code related to transportation system planning. These amendments are proposed to make minor clean-up changes, improve consistency with other plans, and address inconsistences in the Community Development Code.

Who is Affected All county residents are potentially affected by this ordinance.

What Land is Affected All unincorporated county land is potentially affected by this ordinance.

Initial Public Hearings Time and Place

Planning Commission 1:30 pm

August 3, 2016

Board of Commissioners 10:00 am

September 6, 2016

Hearings will be held in the auditorium of the Charles D. Cameron Public Services Building, 155 N First Avenue, Hillsboro, Oregon. On September 6, 2016, the Board of Commissioners (Board) may choose to adopt the ordinance, make changes to it, continue the hearing to a future date, or reject the ordinance. If it is adopted on September 6, 2016, the ordinance would become effective on November 25, 2016.

Washington County Comprehensive Plan Elements Amended

Rural/Natural Resource Plan

Policy 28, Airports: Housekeeping amendments.

Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area


Transportation System Plan

Text: Corrects references and removes terms no longer in use. Goal 5: Mobility Glossary

Maps: Amendments to maintain consistency with other adopted planning efforts. Functional Classification map Lane Numbers map Pedestrian System map Transit System map

Community Development Code

Section 418, Setbacks: Clarifies setback requirements. Section 501, Public Facility and Service Requirements: Amends public

facility and service requirements to include the Bonny Slope West Transportation System Development Charge. Revise text to allow roadway alignments designated in the Transportation System Plan to be adjusted within a subject property.

Section 502, Sidewalk Standards: Revise sidewalk standards to be consistent with Section 501-2. Clarify exemptions from sidewalk construction requirements.

Section 702, Exempt Projects: Revise procedures for land use review of transportation improvements to exempt construction of facilities intended to exclusively serve pedestrians and/or bicyclists.

How to Submit Comments

• Submit oral or written testimony to the Planning Commission and/or the Board at one of the public hearings.

• Written testimony, including email, may be sent to the Planning Commission or Board in advance of the public hearings in care of Long Range Planning.

• Include the author’s name and address with any public testimony.

Washington County, Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services, Long Range Planning

155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 Telephone: 503-846-3519 Fax: 503-846-4412

Email: [email protected]

Staff Contact Steve Kelley, Senior Planner Telephone: 503-846-3764 Email: [email protected]

Proposed ordinance is available at the following locations:

• Department of Land Use & Transportation at the address listed above • www.co.washington.or.us/landuseordinances

• Cedar Mill Community Library and Tigard Public Library • Citizen Participation Organizations (CPOs); Call 503-846-6288 for a directory of

CPOs

Plan Documents Affected by Ordinance No. 814 For more information about these plan documents, please call Long Range Planning at 503-846-3519.

WASHINGTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOCUMENTS Comprehensive

Framework Plan for the Urban Area

Rural/Natural Resource Plan

Exceptions Statement Document

Urban Community Plans:

Community Development

Code Transportation

Plan Public Facility Plan Urban Planning

Area Agreements

S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2016 Ord\Ord814_TSP\Notices_Affidavits_MailingLabels\814_Individual_Notice.docx

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

• WASHINGTON COUNTY

July 6, 2016

To:

From:

Subject:

Citizen Participation Org(lpizations and Interested Parties ~'+:Yl r--<4"~-f-.Oo ,

/ I ~~,~:J;;t' J Andy Back, Manager;/ j!r,~::_;:! Planning and Devel~ent Services

PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO. 814

OREGON

Enclosed for your information is a copy of proposed Ordinance No. 814. Listed below is a description of the ordinance, hearing dates, and other relevant information. If you have any questions about the ordinance, or if you would like additional information, please contact Long Range Planning at 503-846-3519. This ordinance is available on the Washington County web site at:

www.co.washington.or.us/landuseordinances

Ordinance Purpose and Summary Ordinance No. 814 proposes amendments to the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, the Transportation System Plan and the Community Development Code to address transportation-related issues. These amendments are proposed to make minor clean-up changes, improve consistency with other plans, and address inconsistences in the Community Development Code. Key provisions are described on the next page.



Initial Meetings and Public Hearings

Planning Commission 1:30pm

August 3, 2016


September 6, 2016

Hearings will be held in the auditorium of the Charles D. Cameron Public Services Building, 155 N First Avenue, Hillsboro, Oregon.

On September 6, 2016, the Board of Commissioners (Board) may choose to adopt the ordinance, make changes to it, continue the hearing to a future date, or reject the ordinance. If it is adopted on September 6, 2016, it would become effective on November 25, 2016.


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

WASHINGTON COUNTY

July 6, 2016

To:

From:

Subject:

Washington County Citi~~ and Special Service Districts / l (\

" J '" "i ' l

Andy Back, Manager,~/i~~:r,\Jj[ Planning and Development Services

PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO. 814

OREGON

The Washington County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners (Board) will soon consider proposed Ordinance No. 814. Listed below is a description of the ordinance, hearing dates, and other relevant information. If you have any questions about the ordinance, or if you would like additional information, please contact Long Range Planning at 503-846-3519. This ordinance is available on the Washington County web site at:

www.co.washington.or.us/landuseordinances

Ordinance Purpose and Summary Ordinance No. 814 proposes amendments to the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, the Transportation System Plan and the Community Development Code to address transportation-related issues. These amendments are proposed to make minor clean-up changes, improve consistency with other plans, and address inconsistences in the Community Development Code. Key provisions are described on the next page.



Initial Meetings and Public Hearings

Planning Commission 1:30pm

August 3, 2016


September 6, 2016

Hearings will be held in the auditorium of the Charles D. Cameron Public Services Building, 155 N First Avenue, Hillsboro, Oregon.

On September 6, 2016, the Board may choose to adopt the ordinance, make changes to it, continue the hearing to a future date, or reject the ordinance. If it is adopted on September 6, 2016, it would become effective on November 25, 2016.


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

Key Provisions

Rural/Natural Resource Plan Policies Amended


Urban Comprehensive Framework Plan Policies Amended


Transportation System Plan Policies Amended

Text: Corrects references and removes terms no longer in use. Goal 5, Mobility Glossary


Community Development Code Standards Amended









Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services, Long Range Planning





• Department of Land Use & Transportation at the address listed above • www.co.washington.or.us/landuseordinances • Cedar Mill Community Library and Tigard Public Library • Citizen Participation Organizations (CPOs); Call 503-846-6288 for a

directory of CPOs S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2016 Ord\Ord814_TSP\Notices_Affidavits_MailingLabels\814_Cities_Notice_REVISED.docx


Key Provisions

Rural/Natural Resource Plan Policies Amended


Urban Comprehensive Framework Plan Policies Amended


Transportation System Plan Policies Amended

Text: Corrects references and removes terms no longer in use. Goal 5, Mobility Glossary


Community Development Code Standards Amended









Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services, Long Range Planning





• Department of Land Use & Transportation at the address listed above • www.co.washington.or.us/landuseordinances • Cedar Mill Community Library and Tigard Public Library • Citizen Participation Organizations (CPOs); Call 503-846-6288 for a

directory of CPOs S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2016 Ord\Ord814_TSP\Notices_Affidavits_MailingLabels\814_CPO_Notice_062316.docx


Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 814 Page ... · A copy of the TriMet Southwest...

Documents

Transcript of Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 814 Page ... · A copy of the TriMet Southwest...