PC Agenda and all materials 7-7-25PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – July 7, 2025
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2025 - 7:00 p.m.
HYBRID MEETING
IN-PERSON: City of Tigard – Town Hall SW HALL BLVD
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
MS TEAMS: https://www.tigard-or.gov/virtualPC
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:01 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m.
4. APPROVE DRAFT MINUTES 7:10 p.m.
a. June 3, 2025
5. RIVER TERRACE 2.0 COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE – TRANSPORTATION PLAN 7:15 p.m.
Sr. Planner Brittany Gada
6. OTHER BUSINESS 8:15 p.m.
Assistant Director of Community Development Schuyler Warren
7. MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT 8:30 p.m.
City of
Tigard
P lanning Commission
Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes – June 2, 2025
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov |
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2025 - 7:00 p.m.
HYBRID MEETING IN-PERSON & MS TEAMS
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Jackson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: President Jackson, Vice-President Miranda (remote), Commissioner Bowerman, Commissioner
Brandt, Commissioner Sabbe, Commissioner Tiruvallur, Commissioner Murphy, Alt. Commissioner
Sprague.
Excused: Commissioner Choudhury, Commissioner Schuck.
CC Liaison Present: Council President Wolf, Councilor Schlack.
Staff Present: Assistant Director of Community Development Schuyler Warren, Senior Planner Brittany Gada,
Associate Planner Trin Miller, Planning Commission Secretary Joanne Bengtson.
3. COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4. APPROVE DRAFT MINUTES
President Jackson noted his request for minor language clarification around voters present in the February
3rd minutes and for the hearing that night. He asked Commissioners for other corrections and hearing none,
asked for a motion to approve the May 5, 2025, minutes. Commissioner Bowerman motioned to accept the
minutes with noted edits and Commissioner Murphy seconded. President Jackson called for a vote and the
motion passed unanimously. (7-0)
5. RIVER TERRACE 2.0 COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE – HOUSING PLAN
Assistant Director of Community Development Schuyler Warren introduced Sr. Planner Brittany Gada who
will lead the River Terrace 2.0 (RT2.0) community planning effort. Sr. Planner Gada presented an overview
of the RT2.0 housing plan, an update on the project schedule and engagement efforts undertaken.
The draft housing plan lays out a high-level approach for delivering on the ambitious housing goals and
policies first identified during concept planning. The draft housing approach aims for 20 dwelling units per
acre for at least 3,000 homes, with integrated market-rate and regulated affordable housing stock, strategies
for facilitating affordable homeownership, a plan to integrate housing with natural resources, parks, and
commercial areas and complementary strategies that support financial, programmatic, and regulatory needs
of regulated affordable, small-scale and large-scale developers to encourage development feasibility.
In this phase, work focused on refining goals and objectives that once finalized, will form the base of the
City of
Tigard
P lanning Commission
Minutes
1
PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes – June 2, 2025
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov |
RT2.0 Community Plan
and amendments to the
Community
Development Code.
The housing plan includes policies, and a regulatory approach garnered from robust public engagement:
A Community Advisory Committee (12 Tigard residents with a broad range of lived experience focused
on housing types to allow and prioritize, density ideals and accomplishing a mix of housing &
affordability),
A Technical Advisory Committee (comprised of different jurisdictional and agency partners like
Washington Co., King City and Clean Water Services, focused on housing issues, density considerations
and a housing mix approach) and,
A Housing Advisory Committee (15 housing professionals local to the area - developers, real estate
professionals and finance experts discussing housing feasibility challenges in developing the area
according to a concept plan and housing objectives that achieve the desired housing mix and density.).
The Community committee wants RT2.0 to include a wide variety of housing types and price ranges to meet
everyone’s needs. Development should balance preservation of natural resources with density in areas with
good vehicular access, shared green space, and be close to parks and within walking distance of commercial
areas.
Regulated affordable housing providers with the Technical committee would like to see less common
housing types in RT2.0, integrated with market-rate housing development. They strongly support transit
through the area, and a walkable community with a wide range of prices so households of all sizes and
incomes have an opportunity to live in RT2.0.
Housing professionals emphasized a need for surety in planning with clear development rules, streamlined
and efficient processes, strong incentives from the city, opportunities for design flexibility and the ability to
place density hubs around commercial areas, which is more financially feasible for them.
Mitigating risk, especially financial risk, is of utmost importance, especially for small-scale developers
approaching new housing types. The ability to get financing is also a concern when planning less common
housing types. Few developers build a range of housing types, favoring one style, produced efficiently. Sr.
Planner Gada described challenges and efforts to strike a balance between what the community wants and
what developers find economically feasible.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes – June 2, 2025
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov |
The team also conducted Focus Groups - connecting with 10 Spanish speaking participants who reside in
Tigard, and a second group with eight high school students involved with the Tigard Youth Advisory
Council and the Tigard High School Future Business Leaders group. Both groups discussed a broad range of
topics - transportation, parks, housing density and increasing needed housing. A third focus group is
planned for late June or early July that will connect with residents and staff of a local affordable housing
development in Tigard.
Sr. Planner Gada said staff submitted the draft housing plan to the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) for a grant opportunity and was awarded funding that will help the city partially fund
housing work.
The next step will discuss the draft housing plan with City Council on June 10, 2025. The team will
continue gathering community feedback to refine and finalize the Housing Plan so we can begin drafting
code amendments and plans. The project continues to be on track for consideration of adoption in the fall
of 2026.
At the next Planning Commission Meeting on July 7, staff will provide a RT2.0 Transportation Plan Update.
Commissioner K7 asked what developers mean by “surety”. Sr. Planner Gada said it means they can enter
into preliminary agreements for development, purchase land, start drafting conceptual designs with a certain
understanding of what the rules mean to successfully deliver their project, even if it needs to shift along the
way to meet the rules.
Vice President Miranda said, “I’d like there to be stronger guidelines or a decision tree to guide the
commission on public benefit as I have perceived the process to have been very subjective previously.”
Asst. Director Warren replied that the development code is worded broadly (purposefully) in terms of what
could be offered as a public benefit because every development is unique, and a planned development is
typically of a scale that it's difficult to anticipate every public benefit that could arise. This gives discretion to
weigh the factors on the public benefit versus the flexibility that's being granted. Staff will work with the
Planning Commission to revisit plan development criteria in general to learn what the commission would
like to see.
V.P. Miranda also spoke to accessibility around incentivizing elevators to create more single level living.
Schuyler said the city doesn’t have a plan for this as elevators are generally considered for buildings with
three or more stories and it’s an expensive feature that wouldn’t pencil out for builders.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes – June 2, 2025
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov |
Commissioner Murphy asked what type of deliverable can the Commission expect with the finalized
housing plan? Sr. Planner Gada would be a document, which would be used to work on code and other
elements.
Commissioner Bowerman asked what kind of incentives developers look for in Tigard. Schuyler said in
the Vertical Housing Development Zone, they sought tax benefits or exemptions. Depending on the
developer, the ‘asks’ are different. Affordable housing developers want land banking which involves the city
setting aside land for them and releasing it through an RFP. They also want the city’s continued policy of
SDC exemptions and tax abatements for affordable housing. Building around a walkable neighborhood is
especially attractive with affordable housing because the high cost of owning a vehicle can extend to
affordable transportation. It doesn’t make sense to build affordable housing far from the jobs and services
that residents rely upon. Market Rate developers work in an area where they're not necessarily concerned
about incentives although they’re happy to take them where available. Regardless of the type of developer,
they want incentives to fit seamlessly within their process.
The subject of Land Trusts and their ability to build or impact/prioritize affordable housing came up.
Schuyler said Proud Ground, the community Land Trust doing most work in our area does some bespoke
development of their own, but after one project in Portland they stepped away – the work was too far
outside of what they felt was their core capacity.
Commissioner Brandt asked what the city considers a short-term rental time period in relation to ADUs
that receive an SDC exemption.
Schuyler said tenancy of 30 days or more, is considered a long-term rental and is treated differently than a
short-term rental. Not just under our code, but under state law, you are afforded certain rights and privileges
as a tenant. The prohibition on renting an accessory dwelling unit (that received an SDC exemption) as a
short-term rental is specifically because those exemptions were offered as an incentive to provide more
housing units for community members, not to support short-term visitor rentals.
Commissioner Sabbe expressed concern about the complete lack of ADA parking with construction of
new 2-story cottage clusters on Bonita. Schuyler understood her concern, but said the issue is stalled
between regulatory frameworks. The Americans with Disabilities Act enforces accessible spaces governed
by the state building code. The building code was written so that the number of required ADA spaces is
based on the number of required conventional spaces. When the state laws for minimum parking
requirements changed, it eliminated the trigger for requiring ADA spaces. We still can require them based
on the number of spaces that a developer proposes for some types of development, but not all.
Cottage clusters are a good example of this challenge. It will take state reform before we can act, because the
city can’t place standards in our building code that are more strict than the state's building code. Tigard,
along with other jurisdictions, notified the state about this issue and the Land Conservation and
Development Commission is aware it needs correcting, they just haven’t proposed anything yet.
There was a question about Tigard getting into the business of land banking. Schuyler replied the city has
no capacity to do land banking – land prices per acre are very expensive, especially with the development
potential surrounding RT2.0. The scale at which the city could participate is extremely limited because funds
are incredibly limited. To attempt it would require a public private partnership of some kind, or a generous
grant from someone like the Bloomberg Foundation.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes – June 2, 2025
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov |
Commissioner Brandt asked whether we have an MOU with TriMet for bus service in RT2.0. Sr. Planner
Gada and Schuyler said we've been working with TriMet since the concept plan, but they are not going to
commit to a service line expansion prior to development of the area. They want the ridership to be there
before they commit. They recently adopted a Forward Together service expansion plan that includes a route
that terminates and turns around at Mountainside High School, the doorstep of this community.
6. Tigard HOME Kick-off UPDATE
Assistant Director Schuyler Warren introduced Associate Planner Trin Miller who is leading Phase II of the
Tigard Housing Opportunity, Mobility and Enterprise (HOME) project. This is Trin’s first presentation to
the Commission; she came to us from Florida and joined the city team in December. We’re lucky to have
her!
The purpose of this project is to deliver policy and code amendment recommendations for Tigard’s
residential neighborhoods intended to encourage flourishing, self-contained communities where housing,
economic and entertainment options are easily accessible to a wide variety of mobilities - walking, biking,
and rolling.
Assoc. Planner Miller shared that the project was awarded a $95,000 grant from Metro to support the
Interactive Community Engagement Plan and to engage with persons traditionally not reached through long
range planning processes. This funding will augment the project’s robust public engagement plan.
Public engagement for long range planning projects in Tigard has consistently indicated that residents desire
more amenities within walking distance of their home, more freedom regarding how they use their home or
property, more straightforward processes for sharing goods/services they make with their neighbors, and
more attractive and safe pedestrian connections with access to commercial amenities, work or services.
Those connections will allow residential neighborhoods to carry some of our jobs burden by exploring ways
that commercial activity can appropriately fit on a neighborhood scale.
Following Council’s 2022 adoption of new Urban Livestock Regulations - built by staff and community
members in Phase I of the HOME project, staff began community outreach efforts for Phase II.
Amendments to planned districts such as the Tigard Triangle and Washington Square and mixed-use
districts are not included, although emergency needs could be addressed if deemed necessary.
Phase II of the HOME project is focused on economic activity within our residential zones.
We are currently developing an engagement plan utilizing multiple strategies to connect with the community.
Engagement will be the heart of the Tigard HOME project moving forward, with a push to meet
community members where they are, through community-based outreach. We want to reach out to
historically marginalized Tigard residents to talk about project specific issues and gain valuable input that
reflects the diversity of our community.
The success of the Tigard HOME project will rely on effective community engagement, grant funding from
Metro, and the city's committed funding to support creative engagement with Tigard community members
who typically do not have their voice heard.
The city has contracted two consultants to execute our engagement plan. Zen Associates was selected as the
Community Engagement Consultant for their engagement strategy and experience using communication
strategies to foster social change and empower historically marginalized communities. Their project team will
partner with up to six community-based organizations/leaders with established trust with our priority
5
PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes – June 2, 2025
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov |
audiences and collaborate with each group to design relevant activities aligned with their established
networks (focus groups, interviews, hands-on activities, etc.). The Zen Associates team will assist the
project team with conducting four, pop-up events in neighborhoods with high traffic locations where we'll
utilize incentives to attract participation and interactive displays with engaging visuals to help residents
envision the possibilities of introducing commercial activity at a neighborhood scale.
Our second consultant is First Forty Feet, who will serve as the Urban Design Storyteller. They’ll create
graphic visualizations of potential Tigard HOME solutions. Professional graphics significantly contribute to
a discussion of complex ideas and consensus building with our residents, even across language barriers.
To accomplish Tigard HOME goals, the community needs to be able to see potential solutions and how
they could work at a neighborhood appropriate scale.
Assoc. Planner Miller invited the Commission to the summer engagement series launch- a Community
Development Get Together on Wednesday, June 18, from 5 to 7 p.m. in Universal Plaza. We’ll reintroduce
HOME to the community and expect we’ll continue work throughout 2026. Phase II of HOME
engagement efforts will seek to build community trust and empower residents to talk about planning issues
and how planning connects to their lives. Gathering community feedback and ideas will help the team shape
proposed HOME zoning codes and create better neighborhoods for everyone.
Assoc. Planner Miller asked if there were any questions she could answer. Alt. Commissioner Sprague
shared her excitement for this project and the possibilities for connecting with neighbors. Commissioners
were looking forward to the addition and availability of community bakeries, convenience stores, goods and
services without parking lots. Something that builds a sense of community not found elsewhere in River
Terrace. The addition of a makerspace was suggested for residents without a shed or backyard space to do
small hobby carpentry or woodworking projects, whether it's refinishing furniture or building a bookshelf.
When asked about the tools Tigard HOME would use to effect change, are they similar to the Tigard
MADE project that embraced zoning and code changes? Trin replied that the set of deliverables for
HOME will likely be a set of recommendations for both policy and code amendments, but the team remains
very open to community input steering the ultimate direction of this project.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
Asst. Director of Community Development Warren mentioned a few updates:
The new City Manager Brent Stockwell. started today. Community Development will take him on a tour
tomorrow of notable places and projects for Community Development, including the Tigard Triangle,
downtown, River Terrace 1 and 2.0.
Schuyler provided a couple of Oregon Legislature updates – SB974 is coming for vote and could take
certain types of decisions away from planning commissions rather than providing guidelines on decisions
work program going forward. One provision would prevent cities from applying design standards to
any development of over 20 dwelling units, unless that development is an apartment. It would impact
the outcomes of River Terrace 2.0, where through the community planning process, the city will be
developing a set of design standards that are intended to improve the livability of the area.
The other big housing bill is the governor's marquee housing bill, HB2138. It's likely to come up for a
floor vote and although the city met early on with the Governor's office to provide some direction and
guidance to in crafting the bill, not all our requests were incorporated. Another change is the bill would
prohibit transportation impact analysis for housing developments.
6
PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes – June 2, 2025
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov |
One bill we support along with some other cities, is a change in state law that would allow expedited
land divisions. It would include the middle housing land divisions and allow consolidation of middle
housing with a subdivision making a more streamlined process.
8. MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT
President Jackson received a motion to adjourn from Commissioner K7, seconded by Commissioner
Brandt. Commissioners voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:46 p.m.
Joanne Bengtson, Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: President Nathan C. Jackson
7
River Terrace 2.0 Transportation Update
Tigard Planning Commission
July 7, 2025
Presentation Topics
RT 2.0
Transportation
Update
•Transportation deliverables overview
•Engagement update
•Draft transportation network
•Tile Flat Extension Scenarios Evaluation
Feedback requested on a preferred
network scenario.
Transportation
Deliverables Overview
RT 2.0 Transportation Deliverables
1.Preliminary transportation networks
2.Tile Flat Extension Scenarios Analysis
3.Final transportation network
4.Street designs
5.Infrastructure project list and cost
estimates
6.Transportation System Plan Amendment
RT 2.0
Transportation
Update
Engagement Update
Transportation Outreach
•Public Open House (Apr. 2025)
•Advisory Committees:
•CAC meeting #2 (Oct. 2024)
•CAC meeting #5 (Mar. 2025)
•TAC meeting #3 (Apr. 2025)
•Focus Groups (Apr. 2025):
•Spanish-speakers
•Students
•More to come!
Engagement
Update
What we’ve heard so far
Transportation
Outreach
•Prioritize comfort and safety for walkers and bikers
•Minimize impacts to natural areas
•Connected pedestrian and bike network, including
trails
•Public transit is a top priority.
•Some facilities in the area feel like a barrier to
walking and biking, need for alternatives
•Most will still need cars but prefer the option to walk
or bike to nearby destinations.
Draft Transportation
Network
Draft Street
Network
Draft Active
Transportation
Network
Tile Flat Extension
Scenarios Evaluation
Background & Scope
•Identified as a special study area in RT2.0
Concept Plan
•Tile Flat extension identified in County studies
and plans
•More analysis needed to study alternatives and
compliance with regional and state rules
•Scoped as a holistic analysis of scenario
performance, benefits, and impacts
Tile Flat
Extension
Scenarios
Evaluation
Scenario 1
Tile Flat
Extension
Scenarios
Evaluation
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Tile Flat
Extension
Scenarios
Evaluation
Scenario 4
Evaluation Metrics
1.Vehicular Network
•Vehicle Miles Traveled
•Quantity of Travel
•Intersection Capacity
•Travel Time
2.Multimodal Network
•Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
•Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress
•Connectivity
•Vulnerable Road User Safety
•Future Transit Service
3.Environmental / Livability
•GHG and Emissions
•Natural Resource Impacts
•Livability Impacts of Regional
Vehicle Trips
Tile Flat
Extension
Scenarios
Evaluation
4.Development Feasibility
•Support to Commercial Areas
•Land Use and Development
Feasibility
•Order-of-Magnitude
Infrastructure Costs
•Timing, Phasing, and Project
Cost
•Fire, Life, Safety
5.Equity
•Equitable Benefits
Evaluation Findings
Scenario 1:
•Lowest cost and natural resource impact
•Supports commercial and transit
•Mostly local traffic on RT2.0 streets (92% local)
•Sufficient connectivity but less than other scenarios
Scenario 2:
•Better connectivity to Vandermost
•Highest cut-through traffic (47% local)
•Increases vehicles on surrounding network
•Approx. double the cost with greater resource impacts
Scenario 3:
•Better connectivity to RT1.0, RT2.0 South, and Kingston Terrace
•Higher cost and natural resource impacts
•More cut-through traffic (62% local)
Scenario 4:
•Best internal and regional connectivity
•Highest cost, impact to resources, traffic volumes, emissions
Tile Flat
Extension
Scenarios
Evaluation
Recommendation
Staff and consultants recommend Scenario 1.
July 15th City Council transportation update
•Will request Council direction on a preferred
scenario
•Request Commissioners’ feedback on a
preferred scenario to share with Council
Tile Flat
Extension
Scenarios
Evaluation
To: Planning Commissioners
From: Brittany Gada, Senior Planner
Schuyler Warren, Assistant Director of Community Development
Re: July 7th River Terrace 2.0 Transportation Update
Date: June 30, 2025
This memorandum accompanies the materials for the River Terrace 2.0 transportation update
scheduled during the July 7th Planning Commission meeting. During the meeting, staff will provide a
brief general transportation update followed by a discussion of the potential extension of Tile Flat
Road through the River Terrace 2.0 neighborhood. Specifically, the update will discuss the draft Tile
Flat Road Extension Scenarios Analysis, dated June 10, 2025, prepared by the River Terrace 2.0
transportation consultants, Toole Design and DKS Associates. The materials provided for this
discussion include the following documents:
• Tile Flat Extension Scenarios Evaluation Summary
• Tile Flat Extension Scenarios Evaluation Technical Analysis
• Tile Flat Extension Evaluation Matrix
Due to the extensive information provided in these documents, staff recommend that the
Commissioners prioritize reviewing the evaluation summary as it provides an overview of the four
Tile Flat Road extension scenarios and the performance metrics used to assess them. The summary
also synthesizes the results of the technical analysis and the information in the evaluation matrix.
The summary also includes the joint staff-consultant scenario recommendation based on the results
of the technical analysis.
If time permits a more in-depth review of the materials, the technical analysis and the evaluation
matrix are also provided. The technical analysis details the methodologies used to assess the four
scenarios and includes complete evaluation results. The evaluation matrix consolidates the
methodology information and results from the technical analysis into a color-coded matrix.
The July 7th transportation update to the Planning Commission precedes the transportation update
that will be presented to City Council on July 15th during which staff will be requesting direction
from the Council on the Tile Flat extension scenarios. As such, during the July 7th meeting, staff will
be requesting that the Planning Commission provide feedback to staff on whether there is a
preferred Tile Flat extension scenario that should be incorporated into the River Terrace 2.0 street
network. Staff will share the Planning Commission’s feedback with Council. Although no formal vote
is required, the Commission could opt to take a straw poll or vote on a scenario if a consensus is not
reached.
Page | 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 10, 2025
TO: River Terrace 2.0 Project Management Team
FROM: Adrian Witte, Toole Design and Kevin Chewuk, DKS Associates
SUBJECT: River Terrace 2.0 Community Plan
Tile Flat Extension Scenarios Evaluation – Summary
#24434-000
This memorandum summarizes the multimodal transportation analysis methodology and findings for the
evaluation of Tile Flat extension scenarios as part of the River Terrace 2.0 Community Plan. Included are the
objectives of the study, a summary of the primary street network and Tile Flat extension scenarios, the
performance metrics used to compare scenarios, and the results of the analysis, which will be used by staff to
identify a recommendation for decision makers moving forward.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The objective of the study is to compare holistic benefits, impacts, and costs of the different primary street
network scenarios and to understand and quantify if there are additional benefits to extending Tile Flat Road or
Mountainside Way beyond providing the base network identified in the River Terrace 2.0 Concept Plan.
TILE FLAT EXTENSION SCENARIOS
The team identified four primary street network scenarios to be evaluated within the River Terrace 2.0
Community Planning process – two of these extend Mountainside Way without a connection to Tile Flat Road
and two include an extension of Tile Flat Road to meet Mountainside Way.
All scenarios provide a primary north to south collector route along Mountainside Way connecting from Scholls
Ferry Road and running west of and eventually connecting to Roy Rogers Road at the Bull Mountain Road
intersection and/or areas further south. This scenario is identified as Scenario 1.
The conceptual alignments of the primary streets for each of the four scenarios are shown on Figure 1 through
Figure 4, although the alignments could be shifted to better serve the surrounding neighborhood or provide
other system benefits (e.g., to reduce costs, lessen impacts to sensitive lands, provide better connectivity, etc.).
The Tile Flat extension scenarios include:
Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios – Summary
June 2025
Page | 2
• Scenario 1: Includes the Mountainside Way extension from Scholls Ferry Road to the Roy Rogers Road /
Bull Mountain Road intersection (Segment A) and is shown in red on Figure 1.
• Scenario 2: Includes Segment A, plus the Tile Flat Road extension from Scholls Ferry Road to the
Mountainside Way extension (Segment B) and is shown in green on Figure 2.
• Scenario 3: Includes Segment A, plus the extension of Mountainside Way from Bull Mountain Road to
connect with Roy Rogers Road somewhere at or between the Perth Road or Woodhue Street
intersections (Segment C) and shown in blue on Figure 3.
• Scenario 4: Includes Segments A, B and C and is shown in purple on Figure 4.
Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios – Summary
June 2025
Page | 3
FIGURE 1 : TILE FLAT EXTENSION SCENARIO 1.
SW Lasich Ln
SW Bull Mtn Rd
SW Beef Bend Rd SW Roy Rogers Rd SW Scholls Ferry Rd
SW Jean Louise Rd
SW
Woodhue St SW River Terrace Blvd SW Vandermost Rd SW Clementine St
A
A
Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios – Summary
June 2025
Page | 4
FIGURE 2 : TILE FLAT EXTENSION SCENARIO 2.
SW Lasich Ln
SW Bull Mtn Rd
SW Beef Bend Rd SW Roy Rogers Rd SW Scholls Ferry Rd
SW Jean Louise Rd
SW
Woodhue St SW River Terrace Blvd SW Vandermost Rd SW Clementine St
A
A
SW Tile Flat Rd
B
B
Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios – Summary
June 2025
Page | 5
FIGURE 3 : TILE FLAT EXTENSION SCENARIO 3.
SW Lasich Ln
SW Bull Mtn Rd
SW Beef Bend Rd SW Roy Rogers Rd SW Scholls Ferry Rd
SW Jean Louise Rd
SW
Woodhue St SW River Terrace Blvd SW Vandermost Rd SW Clementine St
A
A SW Mountainside Way C
Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios – Summary
June 2025
Page | 6
FIGURE 4 : TILE FLAT EXTENSION SCENARIO 4.
SW Lasich Ln
SW Bull Mtn Rd
SW Beef Bend Rd SW Roy Rogers Rd SW Scholls Ferry Rd
SW Jean Louise Rd
SW
Woodhue St SW River Terrace Blvd SW Vandermost Rd SW Clementine St
A
A SW Mountainside Way C
SW Tile Flat Rd
B
B
Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios – Summary
June 2025
Page | 7
PERFORMANCE METRICS
The Tile Flat extension scenarios were compared using the performance metrics shown below. These include a
mix of quantitative and qualitative considerations. Wherever possible, findings were communicated in terms of
resident and traveler experiences, with a focus on identifying meaningful differences between scenarios. The
complete results of the analysis are included in the full evaluation memorandum attached to this summary.
1. Vehicular Network
A. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
B. Quantity of Travel
C. Intersection Capacity
D. Travel Time
2. Multimodal Network
A. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS)
B. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress
C. Connectivity
D. Vulnerable Road User Safety
E. Future Transit Service
3. Environmental / Livability
A. GHG and Emissions
B. Natural Resource Impacts
C. Livability Impacts of Regional Vehicle Trips
4. Development Feasibility
A. Support to Commercial Areas
B. Land Use and Development Feasibility
C. Order-of-Magnitude Infrastructure Costs
D. Timing, Phasing, and Project Cost
E. Fire, Life, Safety
5. Equity
A. Equitable Benefits
Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios – Summary
June 2025
Page | 8
EVALUATION SUMMARY
The primary street network scenarios were compared in how they performed against one another for the
metrics listed above. A summary of the results is included in Table 1.
TABLE 1 : SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
1. VEHICULAR NETWORK
A1. Vehicle Miles Traveled on the
Arterial Street Network
Total VMT change
from no-build: -
0.5%
Total VMT change
from no-build:
+1.0%
Total VMT change
from no-build: -
0.4%
Total VMT change
from no-build: -
0.3%
A2. Vehicle Miles Traveled on the
Primary and Secondary Street
Network
Share of Total VMT
for RT 2.0 Trips:
92%
Share of Total VMT
for RT 2.0 Trips:
47%
Share of Total VMT
for RT 2.0 Trips:
62%
Share of Total VMT
for RT 2.0 Trips:
48%
B. Quantity of Travel Lowest overall ADT
volumes
ADT volumes are
higher along
Mountainside Way
compared to
Scenarios 1 and 3
Slighly higher ADT
volumes along
Mountainside Way
compared to
Scenario 1, but
otherwise similiar
Highest overall
ADT volumes
C. Intersection Capacity This scenario
results in the
highest v/c ratios
on Scholls Ferry
and competitive or
lower v/c ratios
along Roy Rogers.
This scenario
results in improved
operations along
Scholls Ferry with
some degradation
of operations at
the Roy Rogers &
Bull Mountain
intersection.
This scenario
results in similar
operations on
Scholls Ferry to
Scenario 1,
improved
operations along
parts of Roy
Rogers, and some
degradation of
operations at the
Roy Rogers & Perth
intersection.
This scenario
results in improved
operations along
Scholls Ferry with
some degradation
of operations at
the Roy Rogers
intersections with
Bull Mountain and
Perth.
D. Travel Time 6.91 minutes
(-11 seconds from
no-build)
6.88 minutes
(-13 seconds from
no-build)
7.07 minutes
(-2 seconds from
no-build)
6.63 minutes
(-28 seconds from
no-build)
2. MULTIMODAL NETWORK
A. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress –
Relative Investment Needed to
Meet BLTS 1
Lowest investment
to achieve BLTS 1
Achieves BLTS 1
with some costs
for median
crossings at all
locations
Achieves BLTS 1
with some costs
for additional
median crossings
Achieves BLTS 1
with some costs
for median
crossings at all
locations
Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios – Summary
June 2025
Page | 9
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
B. Pedestrian Level of Traffic
Stress – Relative Investment
Needed to Meet PLTS 1
Lowest investment
to achieve PLTS 1
Achieves PLTS 1
with some costs
for additional
median crossings
Achieves PLTS 1
with some costs
for additional
median crossings
Achieves PLTS 1
with some costs
for additional
median crossings
C. Connectivity Provides sufficient
connectivity for
development and
good walkshed
coverage
Provides additional
local and regional
connectivity and
walkshed coverage
Provides additional
local connectivity
and walkshed
coverage
Provides the most
local and regional
connectivity and
walkshed coverage
D. Vulnerable Road User Safety Lowest VRU crash
exposure
VRU crash
exposure is
somewhat higher
than Scenario 1
VRU crash
exposure is
somewhat higher
than Scenario 1
VRU crash
exposure is
considerably
higher than
Scenario 1
E. Future Transit Service Primary route
provides good
coverage and
lowest traffic
volumes minimize
delays
Alternative routes
available but may
reduce Coverage.
Traffic volumes
may result in some
transit delays
Alternative routes
could provide
additional
residential
coverage but
reduce commercial
exposure.
Alternative routes
could reduce
commercial
exposure. Traffic
volumes may
result in transit
delays
3. ENVIRONMENTAL / LIVABILITY
A. GHG & Emissions Lowest potential
for emissions in RT
2.0
Emissions potential
is considerably
higher than
Scenario 1
Emissions potential
is somewhat
higher than
Scenario 1
Emissions potential
is considerably
higher than
Scenario 1
B. Natural Resource Impacts Fewest stream
crossings, some
impact to trees,
lowest impervious
surface
Additional stream
crossing, some
impact to trees,
potential wetlands
impact, increased
impervious surface
Additional stream
crossing, some
impact to trees,
increased
impervious surface
Two additional
stream crossings,
some impact to
trees, potential
wetlands impact,
highest impervious
surface
C. Livability Impacts of Regional
Vehicle Trips
Lowest cut-
through traffic and
a small proportion
of street volume
Cut-through traffic
is considerably
higher than
Scenario 1 and
high proportion of
street volume
Some increase in
cut-through traffic
compared to
Scenario 1 and
relatively small
portion of street
volume
Cut-through traffic
is considerably
higher than
Scenario 1 and
high proportion of
street volume
4. DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY
A. Support to Commercial Areas Provides highest
overall pass-by
Provides highest
pass-by traffic for
Provides best
performance for
SFMW but lower
Provides best
performance for
RRBM but lower
Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios – Summary
June 2025
Page | 10
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
traffic but lower
walkshed coverage
RRBM and good
walkshed coverage
pass-by traffic for
RRBM
pass-by traffic for
SFMW
B. Land Use & Development
Feasibility
Costs can be
supported by
development,
potential impact
on development
yield on
Vandermost
Higher costs may
have implications
on funding
strategy. Some
additional
dedication needs
Higher costs may
have implications
on funding
strategy. Some
additional
dedication needs
and potential
impacts on
development yield
on Vandermost
Highest costs may
have significant
implications on
funding strategy.
Some additional
dedication needs
C. Order of Magnitude
Infrastructure Costs
Lowest cost and no
need for CIP,
County, or City
funding sources
Approximately
double the cost of
Scenario 1 and
may need CIP,
County, or City
funding sources
Higher cost
compared to
Scenario 1 and
may need CIP,
County, or City
funding sources
Approaching triple
the cost of
Scenario 1 and
may need CIP,
County, or City
funding sources
D. Timing, Phasing, and Project
Cost
Phasing can be
structured to delay
costs
Additional stream
crossing may bring
forward costs
Additional stream
crossing may bring
forward costs
Two additional
stream crossings
may bring forward
costs
E. Fire, Life, and Safety Meets fire, life
safety needs with
some impacts on
development on
Vandermost
Meets fire, life
safety needs with
multiple accesses
and response
directions. Higher
traffic volumes
may impact
emergency
response time
Meets fire, life
safety needs with
some impacts on
development on
Vandermost
Meets fire, life
safety needs with
multiple accesses
and response
directions. Higher
traffic volumes
may impact
emergency
response time
5. EQUITY
A. Equitable Impacts Lowest exposure
to emissions,
noise, and crash
risk but some
impacts from
climate resilience
Higher exposure to
emission, noise,
and crash risk,
impacts to housing
affordability and
climate resilience
Higher exposure to
emission, noise,
and crash risk,
impacts to housing
affordability and
climate resilience.
Increased
connectivity
Highest exposure
to emission, noise,
and crash risk and
impacts to housing
affordability and
climate resilience.
Increased
connectivity
Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios – Summary
June 2025
Page | 11
Each scenario and where it performs well and not so well is summarized below.
SCENARIO 1
Where does it perform well?
• This scenario results in the lowest internal traffic volumes which provides benefits in terms of reducing
exposure to crash risk, noise, and emissions for future residents of RT 2.0 West. This has the potential to
provide the greatest benefit to residents and vulnerable population groups living in RT 2.0 West.
• By limiting the number of stream crossings and the scale of streets and intersections, this scenario is the
least impactful on natural systems.
• Traffic exposure for commercial areas is highest under this scenario.
• It is the lowest cost scenario, which can help reduce development costs and make housing more
affordable. It will also allow development to be phased in a way that allows major infrastructure to be
brought online once a critical mass of development triggers the need for these improvements.
Where does it not perform so well?
• This scenario provides the least benefit to arterial street operations and travel time reductions for
regional travelers. However, arterial street operations and travel time differences are not significantly
different compared to other scenarios.
• Not extending Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way reduces regional connectivity to destinations
northwest of River Terrace and local connectivity to RT 1.0, RT 2.0 South, and Kingston Terrace
respectively. The area on SW Vandermost Road will rely on SW Scholls Ferry Road to access other parts
of RT2.0. However, development potential is expected to be limited in this area and can address fire,
life, and safety needs.
SCENARIO 2
Where does it perform well?
• This scenario increases connectivity and access by extending Tile Flat Road to meet Mountainside Way.
This increases access to regional destinations northwest of River Terrace 2.0, provides some incremental
benefits to traffic operations on Scholls Ferry Road, marginally increases the amount of development in
walking distance to key destinations, provides improved access to the area on Vandermost Road, and
provides emergency access from a third primary direction.
Where does it not perform so well?
• This scenario draws traffic from Scholls Ferry Road resulting in increased internal traffic volumes,
changes in traffic patterns that degrade intersection operations at the Roy Rogers & Bull Mountain Road
intersection, and increased VMT while providing no significant reduction in travel time for people driving
through the area in comparison with Scenario 1. The increase in internal traffic volumes and a new
intersection with Mountainside Way will increase crash exposure, noise, emissions, and livability
impacts on local residents.
Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios – Summary
June 2025
Page | 12
• Not extending Mountainside Way south of Bull Mountain (compared to Scenarios 3 and 4) reduces local
connectivity to RT 1.0, RT 2.0 South, and Kingston Terrace and route options for future transit service.
• This scenario requires an additional stream crossing and additional street and intersection
improvements. This increases the impact on natural systems. It will also increase infrastructure costs,
which could bring forward the need to construct major infrastructure such as stream crossings before
development can support them which would need to be funded outside of the RT 2.0 development
schedule.
SCENARIO 3
Where does it perform well?
• This scenario increases connectivity and access by extending Mountainside Way to meet Roy Rogers
Road at the Perth Road intersection. This increases local access to RT 1.0, RT 2.0 South, and Kingston
Terrace and provides more route options for future transit service. It also marginally increases the
amount of development in walking distance to key destinations.
Where does it not perform so well?
• This scenario draws traffic from Roy Rogers Road which provides some slight benefit to traffic
operations on Roy Rogers Road, but results in increased internal traffic volumes, increased VMT, and
overall increased travel time for people driving through the area. The increase in internal traffic volumes
is not as significant as Scenarios 2 and 4, but will still see some increase in crash exposure, noise,
emissions, and livability impacts on local residents.
• Not extending SW Tile Flat Road (compared to Scenarios B and D) reduces regional connectivity to
destinations northwest of River Terrace. The area on SW Vandermost Road will rely on SW Scholls Ferry
Road to access other parts of RT2.0. However, development potential is limited in this area and can
address fire, life, and safety needs.
• This scenario requires an additional stream crossing and additional street and intersection
improvements. This increases its impact on natural systems. It will also increase infrastructure costs,
which could impact housing affordability and may bring forward the need to construct major
infrastructure such as stream crossings before development can support them which would need to be
funded outside of the RT 2.0 development schedule.
SCENARIO 4
Where does it perform well?
• This scenario maximizes connectivity and access by extending Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way. The
Tile Flat Road extension increases access to regional destinations northwest of River Terrace, provides
improved access to the area on Vandermost Road, and provides emergency access from a third primary
direction. The Mountainside Way extension increases local access to RT 1.0, RT 2.0 South, and Kingston
Terrace and provides more route options for future transit service. Both extensions increase the amount
of development in walking distance to key destinations.
• This scenario draws traffic from Scholls Ferry Road and Roy Rogers Road which provides some
incremental benefit to traffic operations on the arterial network and a very slight (<30 seconds) travel
Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios – Summary
June 2025
Page | 13
time savings for regional travelers. However, capacity freed up on the arterial street network is expected
to be filled by regional trips diverting from other congested corridors, resulting in a negligible change in
VMT for this scenario along Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road compared to no-build.
Where does it not perform so well?
• This scenario draws traffic from Scholls Ferry Road and Roy Rogers Road and results in the highest
increase in internal traffic volumes, causing significant increases in crash exposure, noise, emissions, and
livability impacts on local residents.
• This scenario requires two additional stream crossings and the highest number of street and intersection
improvements. This significantly increases the impact on natural systems. It will also significantly
increase infrastructure costs, which could impact housing affordability and may bring forward the need
to construct major infrastructure such as stream crossings before development can support them which
would need to be funded outside of the RT 2.0 development schedule.
RECOMMENDED SCENARIO
The project team recommends that Scenario 1 be developed with a stub provided to the south edge of the
development to allow for the future extension of Mountainside Way if the area south of RT 2.0 West (that is
currently undesignated area outside the UGB) is ever annexed into the City of Tigard and developed.
Scenario 1 outperforms the other scenarios in terms of cost, reduced impact on development and natural
resources, and has the lowest potential impact to RT 2.0 residents. There are some connectivity benefits to
areas of RT 1.0, RT 2.0 South, and Kingston Terrace if SW Mountainside Way was extended further south in the
future.
The scenarios that extend SW Tile Flat Road to connect to SW Mountainside Way do provide additional
connectivity for regional travelers to areas northwest of RT 2.0. However, they provide limited arterial street
operational benefits and do not seem worth the significant added cost and impacts to natural systems,
development phasing, and local residents that will live in RT 2.0.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 - Tile Flat Extension Evaluation (Draft 6-10-2025)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
A1. Total Vehicle Miles Traveled
Ideal Definition: Total VMT decreases on the Arterial and
Primary and Secondary Street network* as the RT 2.0
Primary and Secondary Street network is constructed and
accommodates more local trips.
Total VMT change from no-build: -0.5%Total VMT change from no-build: +1.0%Total VMT change from no-build: -0.4%Total VMT change from no-build: -0.3%
A2. VMT on the Primary and Secondary Street Network
Ideal Definition: The RT 2.0 Primary and Secondary Street
network* serves local trips and discourages regional cut-
through traffic.
Share of Total VMT for RT 2.0 Trips: 92%Share of Total VMT for RT 2.0 Trips: 47%Share of Total VMT for RT 2.0 Trips: 62%Share of Total VMT for RT 2.0 Trips: 48%
B. Quantity of Travel
Ideal Definition: Forecasted average daily traffic volumes
on the Primary and Secondary Street network are
consistent with that of a Collector through a residential
neighborhood, with the ideal condition being under 6,000
ADT
Lowest overall ADT volumes ADT volumes are higher along Mountainside Way
compared to Scenarios 1 and 3
Slighly higher ADT volumes along Mountainside
Way compared to Scenario 1, but otherwise
similiar
Highest overall ADT volumes
C. Intersection Capacity
Ideal Definition: Intersections are forecasted to be less
congested once the RT 2.0 Primary and Secondary Street
network is constructed, with intersections forecasted to
operate with a v/c ratio that is at or below the current
0.99 mobility target
One intersection exceeds the current mobility
target. This scenario results in the highest v/c
ratios on Scholls Ferry and competitive or lower
v/c ratios along Roy Rogers.
Two intersections exceed the current mobility
target. This scenario results in improved
operations along Scholls Ferry with some
degradation of operations at the Roy Rogers &
Bull Mountain intersection.
One intersection exceeds the current mobility
target. This scenario results in similar operations
on Scholls Ferry to Scenario 1, improved
operations along parts of Roy Rogers, and some
degradation of operations at the Roy Rogers &
Perth intersection.
One intersection exceeds the current mobility
target. This scenario results in improved
operations along Scholls Ferry with some
degradation of operations at the Roy Rogers
intersections with Bull Mountain and Perth.
D. Travel Time
Ideal Definition: Forecasted travel times for regional
trips* decrease by more than one half of a traffic signal
cycle (more than 30 seconds) once the RT 2.0 Primary and
Secondary Street network is constructed.
6.91 minutes (-11 seconds from no-build)6.88 minutes (-13 seconds from no-build)7.07 minutes (-2 seconds from no-build)6.63 minutes (-28 seconds from no-build)
Criteria
1. Vehicular Network
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 - Tile Flat Extension Evaluation (Draft 6-10-2025)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4Criteria
A. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Ideal Condition: Minimal investment to create BLTS 1.Lowest investment to achieve BLTS 1 Achieves BLTS 1 with some costs for median
crossings at all locations
Achieves BLTS 1 with some costs for additional
median crossings
Achieves BLTS 1 with some costs for median
crossings at all locations
B. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress
Ideal Condition: Minimal investment to create PLTS 1.Lowest investment to achieve PLTS 1 Achieves PLTS 1 with some costs for additional
median crossings
Achieves PLTS 1 with some costs for additional
median crossings
Achieves PLTS 1 with some costs for additional
median crossings
C. Connectivity
Ideal Condition: high performance in local and regional
connectivity and walkshed coverage.
Provides sufficient connectivity for development
and good walkshed coverage
Provides additional local and regional
connectivity and walkshed coverage
Provides additional local connectivity and
walkshed coverage
Provides the most local and regional connectivity
and walkshed coverage
D. Vulnerable Road User Safety
Ideal Condition: vulnerable road user crash exposure is
zero.
Lowest VRU crash exposure VRU crash exposure is higher than Scenario 1 VRU crash exposure is somewhat higher than
Scenario 1
VRU crash exposure is considerably higher than
Scenario 1
E. Future Transit Service
Ideal Condition: high performance in base coverage, route
options, and minimal transit delay.
Primary route provides good coverage and
lowest traffic volumes minimize delays
Alternative routes available but may reduce
coverage. Traffic volumes may result in some
transit delays
Alternative routes could provide additional
residential coverage but reduce commercial
exposure.
Alternative routes could reduce commercial
exposure. Traffic volumes may result in transit
delays
A. GHG & Emissions
Ideal Condition: cut-through VMT is minimized (zero)Lowest potential for emissions in RT 2.0 Emissions potential is considerably higher than
Scenario 1
Emissions potential is somewhat higher than
Scenario 1
Emissions potential is considerably higher than
Scenario 1
B. Natural Resource Impacts
Ideal Condition: minimal impact to streams, trees,
wetlands, and impervious surface
Fewest stream crossings, some impact to trees,
lowest impervious surface
Additional stream crossing, some impact to trees,
potential wetlands impact, increased impervious
surface
Additional stream crossing, some impact to trees,
increased impervious surface
Two additional stream crossings, some impact to
trees, potential wetlands impact, highest
impervious surface
C. Livability Impacts of Regional Vehicle Trips
Ideal Condition: cut-through traffic is minimized (zero
vpd)
Lowest cut-through traffic and a small proportion
of street volume
Cut-through traffic is considerably higher than
Scenario 1 and high proportion of street volume
Some increase in cut-through traffic compared to
Scenario 1 and relatively small portion of street
volume
Cut-through traffic is considerably higher than
Scenario 1 and high proportion of street volume3. Environmental / Livability2. Multimodal Network
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 - Tile Flat Extension Evaluation (Draft 6-10-2025)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4Criteria
A. Support to Commercial Areas
Ideal Condition: maximize traffic passing by and walkshed
coverage for commercial areas
Provides highest overall pass-by traffic but lower
walkshed coverage
Provides highest pass-by traffic for RRBM and
good walkshed coverage
Provides best performance for SFMW but lower
pass-by traffic for RRBM
Provides best performance for RRBM but lower
pass-by traffic for SFMW
B. Land Use & Development Feasibility
Ideal Condition: least impact to development with costs
contained to those supported by development
Costs can be supported by development,
potential impact on development yield on
Vandermost
Higher costs may have implications on funding
strategy. Some additional dedication needs
Higher costs may have implications on funding
strategy. Some additional dedication needs and
potential impacts on development yield on
Vandermost
Highest costs may have significant implications
on funding strategy. Some additional dedication
needs
C. Order of Magnitude Infrastructure Costs
Ideal Condition: lower costs contained to those supported
by development
Lowest cost and no need for CIP, County, or City
funding sources
Approximately double the cost of Scenario 1 and
may need CIP, County, or City funding sources
Higher cost compared to Scenario 1 and may
need CIP, County, or City funding sources
Approaching triple the cost of Scenario 1 and
may need CIP, County, or City funding sources
D. Timing, Phasing, and Project Cost
Ideal Condition: development can be phased to delay
infrastructure costs
Phasing can be structured to delay costs Additional stream crossing may bring forward
costs
Additional stream crossing may bring forward
costs
Two additional stream crossings may bring
forward costs
E. Fire, Life, and Safety
Ideal Condition: meets fire, life, safety with minimal
impact on development yield and response times
Meets fire, life safety needs with some impacts
on development on Vandermost
Meets fire, life safety needs with multiple
accesses and response directions. Higher traffic
volumes may impact emergency response time
Meets fire, life safety needs with some impacts
on development on Vandermost
Meets fire, life safety needs with multiple
accesses and response directions. Higher traffic
volumes may impact emergency response time
A. Equitable Impacts
Ideal Condition: no impacts to vulnerable populations Lowest exposure to emissions, noise, and crash
risk but some impacts from climate resilience
Higher exposure to emission, noise, and crash
risk, impacts to housing affordability and climate
resilience
Higher exposure to emission, noise, and crash
risk, impacts to housing affordability and climate
resilience. Increased connectivity
Highest exposure to emission, noise, and crash
risk and impacts to housing affordability and
climate resilience. Increased connectivity
Legend
Scenario meets the ideal condition
Scenario has a small impact compared to the ideal condition
Scenario has medium impact compared to the ideal condition
Scenario has a significant impact compared to the ideal condition
Scenario has a very significant impact compared to the ideal condition
Scenario is neutral or operates with no change to existing conditions4. Development Feasibility5. Equity