Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Packet - 07/15/2025
Ti CITY rd Tigard Workshop Meeting AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND JULY 15, 2025 - 5:15 p.m. Executive Session & 6:30 p.m. Workshop TIME: MEETING LOCATION: Meeting will be held in Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard. See PUBLIC NOTICE below. PUBLIC NOTICE: In accordance with Oregon House Bill 2560, this will be a hybrid meeting where some Council, staff or public will participate in person and some will participate remotely. How to comment: •Written public comment may be submitted electronically at www.tigard-or.gov/Comments by noon the day before the meeting date. • If attending the meeting in person, please fill out the public comment sign-in sheet at the front of the room and come to the microphone when your name is called. • If you prefer to call in, please call 503-966-4101 when instructed to be placed in the queue. We ask that you plan on limiting your testimony to two minutes. Upon request, the City will endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by contacting: City Recorder Carol Krager at 503-718-2419 (voice) / carolk@tigard-or.gov or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVESTREAM ONLINE: https://www.tjgard-or.gov/boxcast Workshop meetings will be shown live on Channel 21 at 7 p.m. The meeting will rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: • Every Monday at 1 p.m. • Every Wednesday at 3:30 a.m. • Every Thursday at 12 p.m. • Every Friday at 12:30 p.m. Cr' Ti card Tigard Workshop Meeting g AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: JULY 15, 2025 - 5:15 p.m. Executive Session & 6:30 p.m. Workshop MEETING LOCATION: Meeting will be held in Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard 5:15 PM 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will enter into Executive Session called under ORS 192.660 (2) (i) for the performance review of a public official, All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 6:30 PM 2, WORKSHOP MEETING A. Call to Order— City Council B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call for Non-Agenda Items 3. PUBLIC COMMENT A. Public Comment—Written B. Public Comment— In Person C. Public Comment— Phone-In 4. COMMUNITY UPDATES 6:35 p.m. estimated time A. Police Chief Report B. Tigard Chamber of Commerce C. Council Board and Committee Liaison Reports 5. RIVER TERRACE 2.0 TRANSPORTATION UPDATE 7:00 p.m. estimated time 6. BRIEFING ON TIGARD HOME (HOUSING, OPPORTUNITY, MOBILITY, AND ENTERPRISE) 7:45 p.m. estimated time 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS R. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 9. ADJOURNMENT8:05 p.m. estimated time AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.B - PUBLIC COMMENT DATE: July 15, 2025 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record.The names and cities of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Please review the "Tigard City Council Protocol for Public Comment." NAME & CITY YOU LIVE IN TOPIC Please Print Name City Please spell your name as it sounds if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Optional: If you want a response from staff, please leave your contact information: Check one: Phone or email For❑ Against E Neutral ❑ Name City Please spell your name as it sounds if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Optional: If you want a response from staff, please leave your contact information: Check one: Phone or email For ❑ Against ❑ Neutral ❑ Name City Please spell your name as it sounds if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Optional: If you want a response from staff, please leave your contact information: Check one: Phone or email For [] Against ❑ Neutral [II Name City Please spell your name as it sounds if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Optional: If you want a response from staff, please leave your contact information: Check one: Phone or email For El Against 0 Neutral ❑ SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR f is/a .'a s (DATE F MEETING) jo1., Tigard PD Strategic Dashboard A9 For June 2025 2021 Population Estimate 55,854 (Adopted Budget FY 2024-25) Smolt numbers rouse large percentage increases end decreases. Crime Snapshot Selected Group A Offenses Jun-25 %Chg 2024 YTD 2025 YTD %Chg Person Crime 45 52 15.56% 280 255 p -8.93% Assault 37 37 0 0.00% 214 2104) -1.87% Robbery 4 7 0 75.00% 35 1640 -54.29% Domestic Violence 15 16 0 6.67% 64. 89141 32 81% `Property Crime 204 231 0 13.24% 1382 140218 1.45% Burglary-Residential 5 4 0 -20.00% 22 26 0 18.18% Burglary-Business 4 7 0 75.00% 35 20 0 -42.86% Burglary-Other 5 4 0 -20.00% 42 26 C -38.10% Unauthorized Use of Motor Vehicle 18 5 0 -72.22% 72 43 C -40.28% Theft 102 140 0 37.25% 732 865 0 18.17% Organized Retail Theft 42 38 O -9.52% 193 254 0 31.61% Vandalism 45 33 0 -26.67% 273 227 C -16.85% Graffiti 20 9 C -55.00% 114 7 -34.21% `Societal Crimes 65 66 0 1.54% 387 4133 6.72% DUII 8 9 Q 12.50% 72 71 • -1.39% Drug Offense 6 5 0 -16.67% 15 500 233.33% Disorderly Conduct 6 6© 0.00% 34 35411 2.94% Police Officer Holds 3 10 0 233.33% 29 40• 37.93% DHS Referrals 48 41 0 -14.58% 296 308• 4.05% 'Arrests 98� 126 0 28.57% 748 841 12.43% Felony 13� 11 a -15.38% 113 102* -9.73% Misdemeanor 22 44 0 100.00% 166 264• 59.04% Citation To Appear 22 30 0 36.36% 203 213• 4 93% Warrants - 41 410 0.00% 266 262-0 -1.50% (Calls for Service Jun-24 Jun-25 %Chg 2024 YTD 2025 YTD %Chg Dispatched Calls 1835 2071 0 12.86% 10698 11107 0 3.82% Self Initiated Calls 1475 1575 0 678% 8399 9754 C) 16.13% Online Crime Reports 74 66 -10.81% 401 464 15.71% (Response Time Jun-24 Jun-25 %Chg 2024 YTD 2025 YTD °/a Chg Priority 1 &2 6.15 7.08 0 15,12% 6.35 6.78 0 6.77% Priority 3 8.93 10.28 I® 15.12% 9.98 10.83 0 8 52% l Priority 4+ 9.77 6.380 -34.70% 9.47 9.58 Q 1.16% •Person Crime-Assault(verbal harassment,menacing,simple and felony assault),Homicide,Robbery,Kidnap,Forcible/Non-Forcible Sex Offense •Propertr Crimes-Arson,Bribery,Res Burglary,Bus Burglary,Oth Burglary,Forgery,Vandalism,Embcn:le,Fraud,Theft,UUMV,Bad Check 'Societal Crimes-Drug Offense,Prostitution,Weapons,Curfew,DisCon,DUI],Psrnily Offense,lagour Laws,Peeping Torn,Trespass • I he data is National Incident Based Reporting System(NIBRS)compliant and not Uniform Crime Report(UCR)compliant and cannot be compared to any report using that standard For more info on NIBRS:hops://www-.fbi.guv/scrvices/cjis/ucr/ntbrs 1 = 5" � ; Tigard PD Strategic Dashboard ;�/, v O k + ;' For June 2025 l "' 2021 Population Estimate 55,854 s\!•� p (Adopted Budget FY 2024-25) Employee Snapshot Department Staffing Information Actual Budget %Budget Sworn 68 0 77.0 88% Non-Sworn 1_7J2 19,5 Total Number of Personnel 85.0 96.5 8S% Patrol Staffing Authorized 43 I Days Swings Graves Overall #of Shifts at or below Minimums 8 27'r 8 27°ro 8 27% 27% #of Shifts conducted with 5 or more Days Swings Graves Overall% patrol officers 10 33% 22 73°° 10 33% 47% - Personnel Unavailable for Work Patrol All Other Overall 4 of Recruits in Pre-Academy - #of Recruits in Academy - #of Recruits in Recruit Training 1 1 #of Personnel on Extended Sick Leave/FMLA - #of Personnel on Military Leave - #of Personnel on Modified Duty* 3 3 #of Personnel on Administrative Leave _ 1 - 1 Total Personnel Unavailable to Work during some Period during the Month 5 - 5 Total Officers Available to work PATROL some period during the Month 38 , •Modified Dury=any modified work schedule to accommodate light dory,workers comp,or I,lt'OP Operational Effectiveness Snapshot Bodgrt 1ntortnarion is based on die best at ailable data. FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 r Budget Budget Percent YTD Status Percent YTD Status Department Budget Actual Budgeted Actual Budgeted , Administrative 94°'o 100% 0 -6% 92% 100%to 8% Operations 87°10 100%0 -13°'o 90% 100%0 -10% Services 93°o 100% 0 -7°'c 95% 100% • -5% Total Department Budget 89% 100%_0 -11% 92%, 100%40 -8% Badger information i t based on ncc bear araiiabk data. FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 Percent YTD B to get Percent YTD Budget atus Department Overtime Actual Budgeted Actual Budgeted Administrative 42°%o 100% © -58% 192% 100% 0 92% Operations 112% 100% 0 12% 104% 100%0 4% Services 111% 100% 0 11% 133% 100% 0 33% Total Overtime 110% 100%0 10%_ 116% 100% 0 16% 2 Tigard PD Strategic Dashboard 1, Fortune 2025 (I. /,'Nvi ', '',:- `'` 2021 Population Estimate 55,854 (Adopted Budget FY 2024-25) Levy Status Update Levy Staffing Information-LEVY to date progress Actual Budget %Budget Sworn-Patrol 8.0 8.0 100% Sworn-SRO 1.0 1.0 100% Non-Sworn 2.0 2.0 100% Total Number of Personnel 11.0 11.0 100% Emergency Response Times - 5 Year Trend PRIORITY 1 AND 2 Priority 1 calls 1—..; "' Imminent threat to life d;: b., to l Priority 2 calls=Immediate threat to - life,occuring now Community Snapshot Community Outreach and Events News Releases Upcoming Events (6/7)Grace Point Church breakfast (6/2)Twelve Arrested in Recent Retail Theft Mission (7/10)Summer Camp visit (6/7)Summer Kickoff at Universal Plaza (6/12)Results from Recent Traffic Safety Enforcements (7/12) Popsides with Police Orchard Prk (6/9)Law Enforcement Torch Run (7/16) Popvicles w/Police©Universal Plaza (6/10)Leadership Tigard (7/19)Scam Prevention for Seniors (6/12)Good Morning Tigard (7/21)If I Were Mayor winners PD tour (6/17)leadership Tigard graduation (7/23)Scam Prevention for Seniors (6/21-22)Tigard Festival of Balloons (7/26) Community Preparedness Fair (6/25)Meeting with Second Home (7/29)Summer Camp visit (6/27)Movie in the Park Photo Enforcement Red Light Month of: June 2025 YTD 2024 2025 Yr to Yr Received Issued Rejected Issued Issued '/o Chg 99W/SW Hall Blvd - - - 813 283 -65% 99W/SW 72nd Ave - - - 401 47 -88% 99W/SW Durham Rd - - - 145 28 -81% Intersection Speed Month of: June 2025 YTD 2024 2025 Yr to Yr Received Issued Rejected Issued Issued %Chg 99W/SW FIall Blvd - - - 303 220 -27% 99W/SW 72nd Ave - - - 1560 1716 10% 3 Tigard PD Strategic Dashboard --(It lc --;..".':=• v, ' -./ ',:,'..;:', For June 2025 '''Ll 2021 Population Estimate 55,854 (Adopted Budget FY 2024-25) --,..•!. -,,-- Calls For Service - By Month: 5 Year Trend JUNE DISPATCHED JUNE SELF INITIATED . 2021 I 2023 . i,,---1575 1295 /1, :, _._,,..........,- -1./ it\\. - ' 1f541 ' . - r.14/ 11111, ii, IWorkload Distribution toil Total Dispatched Calls: I 2017 Total Societal Calls: 1441j %of monthly workloadj 71% ....,, vuir 1.,,, :.`• Cs,, , ON Ds4OCKNIAN .“ '41. Z. ' a 411, 49 4, , ' 7 .,:v• 'A*C.,t -4 il , I 'Ik, . ,a c 0 11.7 4., e : 0 ' 141 .4 " 38 ..., ..,.., „ ;- 262 0 •., .t.- , ,J IC C II 1 ,CD- 22 4, u, ,• „ „„w.. Lipsv, \\ ., (I) F.. ,.. : CO Tard o 420 , . CD \ 0 Ma 6 _ID a ED ,, _ • .,,A„„_ , So m-noNALJED, ,.... .., , .0 Mt 0 7 t• ..., Sr0 tal. 1. I? . CD 19 .1.. .. . CD 4 . 2 i 9 . ue, 41,6,.ine 0 0 CI)96 King 1r City co , ` 37 1 it 4 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FIREWORK CALL SUMMARY 2025 FOR -V/ /,- .dvv.`- (DATE OF MEETING) FIREWORK CALLS BY YEAR Aye/9da bLepn y-A -6s 55 #7. so 36 23 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 CALLS ACROSS DISTRICTS 2025 11% wi T1 'r ,.. —1T2 T3 25% 33% T4 / \ ir TS 15% FIREWORKS BY HOUR JULY 4TH 2025 THRU JULY 5TH 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 A••••\#04."4\--1\ 4 2 0 °° .c� .°° °° .°° .°° o° .°° .°° °° °° °° °° °° °° o° P o° °° cP °° °° o° o° o° es, �. el: ,y. s• y. co. .1. (b. 9• ,z: NN. ^r1;• ^,y ,`a• ^y. „co. <V 0. ,`c6. ..0. ry^• �,1,. ,yg• 0• Ln Ct m in ri re) ri N N rn CO tO N Ct r, O O CO CD N N Cr) ri N r-I a--I r4 ri r-1 rJ r1 rt *Cr CO CO to N to in rN N 00 O N V o N M O to N M M ri N tD e-1 N in N N O N N N 00 00 00 .-+ O Cr) O N 61 U1 N .--I ri a--f ,--1 ri •-I r'y N r1 N ri ri N N M ri rrl f V rl Cr) Cr) CD Vl M N CD r1 N N N N M N V1 ri N Ct co V N Q1' m O N in N N Q1 CO CO 61 O CD N N CD N a-i ri r-I a-i r-1 a-♦ ,t r1 N N r'I .--I, N N N N Cl tO to Cr ^'i ri 61 CD in V1 Cl Vl N N r-I tD .--I co N 61 tO N ri N N co O 110 00 01 61 00 O O O CO Cl tD N N N .-I r-I r-I .-i ri .-y N N ri ri IM a-1 N N r-I N. ri CO Ct Cl O CD CO N CO ,I 00 rti N 0 in Cr) N CO t Cr to ri Ct rn tD. rrl O N V1 tO N 01 00 01 co 61 N 00 00 I N N r--I I-I r-I I-I ri r-1 r-I a--I a-I a-I a1 1-1 ri N • 0 N in61 Cr) rf tD N ri in m coO i CO N CO to I ) Ol Cr CO 0 61 to Ct V V1 O CD tD tD Ln Lfl N N ry N N 00 tD N O .--I r 1 a-I a-I e-I .--I .-I a-I a--I N Cr) N a-I O r-I N a--I t.'1 m CO O O Vl co ri fT r-I N m V) rn oo Vl 00 vI ri in al O N tD N 00 61 61 o 0 CO CO N N r-f N N .-I ri ri ri r-1 N N .--I 1-1 .-i r I N N CO N ri CD Vl co CO N 00 00 Cr) ri Lc, Cr ri 6) of 00 Ct O N ri m Vl M N fN Vl O N 00 00 00 O Cl O 01 N 00 N O Ct N a-I r1 ri ri N e-I N r1 ri r-I ri rV . N 1 N N tD 00 ri V N O 1-1 to N in 61 O CI a-f CD N N N ri Cr) 0 0 Cr) in LC) O tD O Lb v N tO rn 00 61 61 tO N tD N CO N ri e-I a-I r-I ri ri ri r-I a-I a-I .-I a-I o N to co O M Ln 61 a-I N CO V) m a-i Cr) ra CO V1 tD V1 Cr) m O 00 in N in Q1 61 O V 00 N CO 00 CO in tD V1 tD 61 N ri ri r1 ri ri rf r-1 r1 a-1 ri ri ri 61 I ri ! V) en N Ql m V1 Ct 61 N N O 00 61 ri ri O CD tD N o co V1 61 N N m N Vl O M V1 Ct CO N 00 N N V1 V1 in m N a-1 ri ri ri ri ri ri ri r1 ri ri vII Q1 r1 a f1.1 t Cr CO N 00 tO 00 00 V1 N in M to N N N ri N to tD 0 DI00 m N 00 00 Ct Ct ri CO CD Cr N Ct V1 V1 V1 N N to tO Ct Vl N f? N r-I N ri a-1 11 r-t ri r-I ri ri ri ri 00 to .-i 0 D OwzWaaQz w u t_ 2 a 2 ' Q to o z o Tigard PD Strategic Dashboard kr 0 , , . ,, v,t ,,,.., For June 2025 - - 2021 Population Estimate 55,854 (Adopted Budget FY 2024-25) [ ------------ Calls For Service - By Month: 5 Year Trend_ JUNE SELF INITIATED 1475''—'--.----.—1 51" ................ 1295 .......- ! 1 1 1059 4 I I IS ZIN I 101 I 1311 20.,• apdf'S IWorkload Distribution Total Dispatched Calls: 2017ITotal Societal Calls: I 14411 %of monthly workloadL 71% ,ftir t. 1-• t ,., v•'' + 111 aim „ ci) , a 0 Is 1 41 $ -...,,..... , g 0 e ..... ill ,, -\,„ re •,,,,‘ . ,:. Q ..- '-?lip 262 Cf:) I ' - 0 • CD CD 421..pt • 22 e„ ,45 , ,..„,,,t „, ,, ,tz, ..- : , ,, , I Ttia r d CO 420, CD \ tai...„_.(p — 0 ,... Ai . 7 co CD, 0 _ 9 t ED 0 • 96 (E) ' ite, 4 . r.% ...,;,.• c.ii King C i t Y 0 • 61 4 SUPPLEMEr1'TAL PACKET FOR 7 s (DATE OF MEETING} Tigard Chamber of Commerce City Council Update Mtom July 2025 Update Our Board of Directors has changed and we want to introduce you to our new leadership.Sara Tanner from Firenze Wealth Management is our new Board Chair for 2025-2027. Dr.Whitney Green Bautista owner of Pinnacle Wellness Center is our Chair-Elect and she will serve alongside Sara and take over as Chair in 2027.Tom Engel of Vantage Point HR will continue service as Past Chair through 2027.We appreciate their leadership and look forward to you all getting to know them better as they help shape the future of our Chamber. We celebrated our 70th birthday as your local Chamber of Commerce here last week on July 11t.Thank you to everyone who was able to join us.We look forward to continuing to serve the community for many more decades to come. We accompanied Congresswoman Salinas on a tour of Fought Steel last week. It has been refreshing to have more desires for business tours and we look forward to continuing them in the fall. The much-anticipated Ribbon Cutting and Grand Opening for the NEW Ava's Roasteria Center is set for July 28th more details can be found on the Tigard Chamber website! Leadership Tigard Applications for the Class of 2026 are now open.We are hopeful to fill all 20-30 seats with local business owners, entrepreneurs, residents,elected officials or aspiring elected officials, City of Tigard teammates, leaders wishing to brush up on their skills and dive deeper into Tigard,those who think Leadership may be for them in the future and want to learn more about themselves and our community in Tigard. Education,Advocacy, & Building a Strong Local Economy • Our Government Affairs & Public Policy Committee has moved to an online format to be more accessible to a wider range of businesses and non-profits. You must email Megan to be added to the meeting invitation. • Currently working with both House Majority Leader Representative Ben Bowman and Senator Courtney Neron Misslin to set up ongoing listening sessions for Tigard businesses. Look for those dates coming soon. Promoting Community The Tigard Farmers Market is bustling with fresh produce,artisan goods,exceptional hot food vendors,and something for everyone.Visit the market Sundays 9am-1:30pm now through October in Universal Plaza. Networking/Visibility(Check the Chamber Calendar for details) Good Morning Tigard (GMT),Thursday A.M. Networking 7:30 a.m.—Weekly We are having 60+attendees weekly at our Good Morning Tigard Events. Check the Chamber Calendar for times that might work well for you to attend and support local business. It's a great time to join the Tigard Chamber of Commerce. We have many upcoming educational events, ribbon cuttings and more. Please visit the Tigard Chamber Website monthly to add those to your calendar and support your local business community. Save the Dates July 22nd After Hours at Three Mermaids Public House July 25th Business Listening Session with Senator Neron Misslin at Colab 11am-12:30pm July 28th Ribbon Cutting and Grand Opening Celebration for Ava's Roasteria Center July 31"GMT Ribbon Cutting for NW Accent at new Main Street location AIS-5820 5. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 07/15/2025 Length (in minutes): 45 Minutes Agenda Title: River Terrace 2.0 Transportation Update Authored By: Schuyler Warren Presented By: Senior Planner Gada and Assistant Director of Community Development Warren Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Public Hearing No Legal Ad Required?: Publication Date: Information EXPLANATION OF ISSUE Staff will provide a River Terrace 2.0 transportation update to present the results and recommendations of the draft Tile Flat Road Extension Scenarios Evaluation. The update will also include an overview of the preliminary transportation network and community engagement feedback received to date on transportation topics. ACTION REQUESTED Staff will request direction from City Council on a preferred transportation network scenario. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The River Terrace 2.0 transportation update 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. 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 River Terrace 2.0 Concept Plan identified the potential Tile Flat Road extension as a special study area to be fully examined during the Community Plan process. The need for a special study was identified due to prior Washington County studies which included an extension of Tile Flat Road through the River Terrace 2.0 neighborhood. During the Concept Plan process, the city determined more analysis was needed to determine if such an extension was necessary, so the Tile Flat Road extension analysis was factored into the scope of the Community Plan project. The draft Tile Flat Road Extension Scenarios Analysis is the result of this special study. 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 Councilors 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, a synthesis of the technical analysis and the evaluation matrix, and a recommendation prepared by the city team and the transportation consultants based on the results of the technical analysis. For 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. Identifying a preferred transportation network scenario will allow the project team to finalize the River Terrace 2.0 street network, which is a critical project milestone that informs future deliverables, including amendments to the Transportation System Plan and the list of needed transportation infrastructure and associated cost assumptions to incorporate into the Equitable Finance Strategy. Dates of Previous and Potential Future Considerations March 3, 2020 - Council acceptance of Metro 2040 Planning grant to fund Concept Planning for River Terrace 2.0 September 15, 2020 - Briefing on River Terrace 2.0 progress February 2, 2021 - Briefing on River Terrace 2.0 progress April 27, 2021 - Briefing on River Terrace 2.0 progress June 8, 2021 - Briefing on final Concept Plan and direction from Council to apply to Metro for UGB expansion July 25, 2023 - Council acceptance of Metro 2040 Planning grant to fund Community Planning July 25, 2023 - Council approval of grant application to Department of Land Conservation and Development February 13, 2024- Council approval of contract to conduct Community Planning with EcoNorthwest May 28, 2024- Project kick-off briefing November 12, 2024- Briefing on climate goals, housing plan, annexation; approval of property tax phase-in rate schedule June 10, 2025 - Briefing on the draft Housing Plan, project progress, and community engagement July 15, 2025 -Transportation Briefing Fall 2025/Winter 2026 - Completion of Transportation System Plan amendment (to be considered for adoption in Summer/Fall 2026) Fall 2025/Winter 2026 - Council consideration of annexation Summer/Fall 2026- Council adoption of Community Plan, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Zoning Map, and Development Code Amendments Public Involvement Transportation considerations for the River Terrace 2.0 project have been informed by a range of community engagement and outreach with residents, advisory committees,jurisdictional partners, and other stakeholders during both the River Terrace 2.0 concept planning process and the Community Plan project. Additional engagement opportunities are planned this summer and fall to further inform the project. Specific outreach events that have engaged the public and stakeholders on transportation topics include: October 1, 2024- Community Advisory Committee Meeting#2 March 12, 2024- Community Advisory Committee Meeting#5 April 2025 - Open Houses (online and in-person) April 23, 2025 -Technical Advisory Committee Meeting#3 April 24, 2025 - Focus group with high school students April 29, 2025 - Focus group with Spanish-speaking community members Impacts (Community, Budget, Policies and Plans/Strategic Connection) Feedback and direction provided on the preferred transportation network scenario will allow the project team to finalize the internal street network. Once the street network is completed, it will inform upcoming project deliverables, including amendments to the Transportation System Plan and a list of needed transportation infrastructure and associated cost assumptions to incorporate into the Equitable Finance Strategy. ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION After reviewing the results of the analysis, staff and the project's consultant team reached consensus to make a recommendation for Council to select Scenario 1 as the preferred transportation network scenario. Alternatively, the Council could select Scenario 2, 3, or 4. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES N/A Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: N/A Attachments Draft Tile Flat Evaluation Summary Draft Tile Flat Evaluation Technical Analysis Draft Tile Flat Evaluation Matrix Presentation RT2.0 III RIVER TERRACE , 1It'^Iil' COMMUNITY PLAN 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 tt24434-000 Tile Flat Extension Scenarios Evaluation—Summary 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: Page I 1 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios—Summary TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN • 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. Page I2 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios—Summary TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN SW Scholls Ferry Rd ssii r A ----- - . SW Clementin4 st 1 1 j [WEST] f 1 1 - - A .. 1 SW Jean:Loulse Rd g 1 s , c j ,d > 14 I A a 1c 1.0 1n 17� �^ SW Bull Mtn Rd 004 v a m . 0 i . v m W 44vet0 1 Ite SW 9V5oahue ST---- SW Lasich Ln SW Beef Bena Rd FIGURE 1: TILE FLAT EXTENSION SCENARIO 1. Page 13 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios—Summary TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN SW Scholls Ferry Rd \ 1-1 —.1 SW Tile.Flat Rd SW Clementine St 1 1 1 B [WEST] 1 . 1 „..,,,--,‘ 1 1 1 S9 a SW 1eaniLoulse Rd ?n 1 o r i 1 1 h 1 uql � y > � 14 1 A I,. I Iu ` • 13 i SW BuII Mtn Rd 4 �.._1 0-4 !p i ti i \ . l ,0 14' I 1 u ' u —Spe1„Aa ��►° 14 d ti . SW I WTo8hueST----.fir:.' SW Laslch In SW Bee(Bend R'a v FIGURE 2: TILE FLAT EXTENSION SCENARIO 2. Page 14 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios—Summary TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN SW Scholls Ferry Rd i .. -----1 A • {-- SW Clement iniSt k. I I [WEST] r 'ft....mm.6A I SW lean4loulse Rd . o 1 P. v t c - tm > 14 A lla I V^n I SW Bull Mtn Rd 4 1 i 1 1 O K { - ,, . _.C 6/0a 0 00T. a c c 7 0 f > # m S*1 PQttl1 W5 1414' us SW •1 4V1foahleST--_- r SW Lasich Ln SW Bee Rend Rd 111110 FIGURE 3: TILE FLAT EXTENSION SCENARIO 3. Page 15 RIVER 9 Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios—Summary TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN SW Scholls Ferry Rd I A I SW Tile Flat Rd iSW Clementin St 't 1 L' . -71 1 B [WEST] 1 oII 1 1 v - SW JeanlLouise Rd z 1 c v 1 1 c Im > Lq 1 io N �� ID 12 1�n 1 1 SW Bull Mtn Rd I 1 t 1 ce ce C 3 Or' 0 0 [ Ce 3 O 2 'I; .wF 5,14 vevhaa I- lm Sw A/Soahugg---- SW Laslch Ln SW Beef Bend Ad FIGURE 4: TILE FLAT EXTENSION SCENARIO 4. Page 16 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios—Summary TERRACE - June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN 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 Page 17 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios—Summary TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN 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 RESULTSLI SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 1. VEHICULAR NETWORK Al.Vehicle Miles Traveled on the Total VMT change Total VMT change Total VMT change Arterial Street Network from no-build:- from no-build:- from no-build: - 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% A2.Vehicle Miles Traveled on the - :1 VMT Share of Total VMT Share of Total VMT Primary and Secondary Street I 'or RT 2.0 Trips: for RT 2.0 Trips: for RT 2.0 Trips: Network 47% 62% 48% B.Quantity of Travel ADT volumes are ,„ +y` Highest overall higher along : ADT volumes Mountainside Way compared to Scenarios 1 and 3 C. Intersection Capacity This scenario This scenario This scenario This scenario results in the results in improved results in similar results in improved highest v/c ratios operations along operations on operations along on Scholls Ferry Scholls Ferry with Scholls Ferry to Scholls Ferry with and competitive or some degradation Scenario 1, some degradation lower v/c ratios of operations at improved of operations at along Roy Rogers. the Roy Rogers& operations along the Roy Rogers Bull Mountain parts of Roy intersections with intersection Rogers,and some Bull Mountain and degradation of Perth. operations at the Roy Rogers&Perth intersection. D.Travel Time 6.91 minutes 6.88 minutes 7.07 minutes 6.63 minutes (-11 seconds from (-13 seconds from (-2 seconds from (-28 seconds from no-build) no-build) no-build) no-build) 2. MULTIMODAL NETWORK A. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Achieves BITS 1 Achieves BLTS 1 Achieves BLTS 1 Relative Investment Needed to with some costs with some costs with some costs Meet BLTS 1 for median for additional for median crossings at all median crossings crossings at all locations locations Page 18 RIVER 9 Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios—Summary TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 B. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Achieves PLTS 1 Achieves PLTS 1 Achieves PLTS 1 Stress—Relative Investment with some costs with some costs with some costs Needed to Meet PLTS 1 for additional for additional for additional median crossings median crossings median crossings C.Connectivity Provides sufficient Provides additional , Provides additional connectivity for local and regional local connectivity , development and connectivity and and walkshed good walkshed walkshed coverage coverage coverage D.Vulnerable Road User Safety Lowest VRU crash VRU crash VRU crash , • VR c exposure exposure is exposure is `expOsure!I .i- somewhat higher somewhat higher •to ,id'- . •I than Scenario 1 than Scenario 1 `.Fil_lLx .-y, cehario. E. Future Transit Service Primary route Alternative routes Alternative routes Alternative routes provides good available but may could provide could reduce coverage and reduce Coverage. additional commercial lowest traffic Traffic volumes residential exposure.Traffic volumes minimize may result in some coverage but volumes may delays transit delays reduce commercial result in transit exposure. delays 3. ENVIRONMENTAL/ LIVABILITY A.GHG&Emissions Lowest potential -! i.n .Q en . Emissions potential Emiss.94-potential. for emissions in RT is somewhat i'isconsideratil is 2.0 higher than igl er tha h n'. Scenario 1 l; S e�t ato# - �, " 4- u,` i--74. B. Natural Resource Impacts Fewest stream Additional stream Additional stream Two additional crossings,some crossing,some crossing,some stream crossings, impact to trees, impact to trees, impact to trees, some impact to lowest impervious potential wetlands increased trees, potential surface impact,increased impervious surface wet.ands impact, impervious surface highest impervious surfac- C. Livability Impacts of Regional Lowest cut- 36e4fiTO f-U ,`i-3 ct'a Some increase in Vehicle Trips through traffic and :" e• "si.era. :. cut-through traffic a small proportion higrs-i;lt compared to of street volume T1r:i ` - Scenario 1 and '1kat•o 1• ' ' relatively small portion of street volume 4. DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY A.Support to Commercial Areas Provides highest Provides highest Provides best Provides best overall pass by pass by traffic for performance for performance for SFMW but lower RRBM but lower Page 19 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios—Summary TERRACE L. June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN J - 1 SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 -{• traffic but lower RRBM and good pass-by traffic for pass-by traffic for walkshed coverage waikshed coverage RRBM SFMW B. Land Use&Development Higher costs may Higher costs may Highest costs may Feasibility have implications have implications have signi`;cant on funding on funding implications on strategy.Some strategy. Some funding strategy. additional additional Some additions, dedication needs dedication needs dedication needs and potential impacts on development yield on Vandermost C.Order of Magnitude Approximately Higher cost • pro.c in• ri'• e• Infrastructure Costs double the cost of compared to Scenario 1 and Scenario 1 and may need CIP, may need CIP, • County,or City County,or City funding sources funding sources D.Timing, Phasing, and Project Additional stream Additional stream Cost crossing may bring crossing may bring forward costs forward costs E. Fire,Life,and Safety Meets fire, life Meets fire,life Meets fire, life Meets fire, life safety needs with safety needs with safety needs with safety needs with some impacts on multiple accesses some impacts on multiple accesses development on and response development on and response Vandermost directions. Higher Vandermost directions. Higher traffic volumes traffic volumes may impact may impact emergency emergency response time response time 5. EQUITY A. Equitable Impacts Lowest exposure Higher exposure to Higher exposure to Highest exposure to emissions, emission,noise, emission, noise, to emission, noise, noise,and crash and crash risk, and crash risk, and crash risk and risk but some impacts to housing impacts to housing impacts to housing impacts from affordability and affordability and affordabii,ty and climate resilience climate resilience climate resilience. climate resil once. Increased Increased connectivity connectivity Page 110 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios—Summary TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN 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. Page 1 11 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios—Summary TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN • 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 Page 112 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios—Summary TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN 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. Page 113 RIVER TERRACE "`'''"" COMMUNITY PLAN 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 #24434-000 Tile Flat Extension Scenarios Evaluation 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 scenario to recommend to 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. 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 slightly 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: Page I 1 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN • 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. Figure 5 shows the primary street scenarios and preliminary alignments for supporting streets (assumed to be primarily neighborhood street classifications)that react to site constraints such as existing and planned intersections along the primary street network,jurisdictional boundaries, stream crossings, significant trees, groves, and wetlands, fire, life, safety access requirements, and other factors. Future iterations of the street network will further refine these assumptions and consider other factors such as alignment with school district boundaries and parcel boundaries that could impact phasing. Page 12 RIVER 9 Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN SW Scholls Ferry Rd A SW ClementinI St 1 a [WEST] � ••••••••••••Li SWlcan:LouiseRd p� 1 t 1 C1 c Iv > Iq 1rpp N IC 1-c I� 1v0I 1 SW Bull Mtn Rd 1 W O O 00 I m L 2 N SW NEoahLeSf---- •' SW Lasich Ln SW Beef B na Ad r FIGURE 1: TILE FLAT EXTENSION SCENARIO 1. Page 13 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN SW Scholls ferry Rd A B ----- SW Tile Flat Rd SW Clementini St B [WEST] SW lean Louise Rd tt - c � ly ? l4 A IP I,n 17� 1✓� 1 SW gull Mtn Rd 1 � C a, 0 c7 m a' 4$ z SW GVEoahueST---- /'"' SW Lasich Ln SW Beef Rd 41110 FIGURE 2: TILE FLAT EXTENSION SCENARIO 2. Page 14 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN SW Scholls Ferry Rd A 4 , SW Clementlni St • [WEST] SW Jean`Loulse Rd cc 0 1 ir-+•� C 1 IQ 1m Ic 1.0 Ian I,, SW Bull Mtn Rd 1 11110NN 1 0 >. u C v o C 0 a U a SW 91/42foahLeST""'" SW Lasich In SW Reef Bend as FIGURE 3: TILE FLAT EXTENSION SCENARIO 3. Page 15 RIVER I Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN PliSW Scholls Ferry Rd Aw N44...3 ....... 1 SW The Flat Rd SW Clementin4 St I I I B [WEST] , IIQ A Ip v 1 is_ IN 1 1 � �. I I SW Bull Mtn Rd 4 1 I IIISIt I1 re `a C 3 ° z O K n•n••• N I, C 2 m v ----' icc 3 iN SW 4VSo8hue S[""—' 7` SW Laslch In Re ef ndRI w FIGURE 4: TILE FLAT EXTENSION SCENARIO 4. Page 16 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN RIVER TERRACE 2.0 SITE :STREET NETWORK CONSIDERATIONS I '�Une upwith existing— Mountainside Way Intxn I LowdensltydevalongVandennos eltopment _ / Il ua.nn:a � sy+ `1 T " -'k-. • ---.1— _----- 1.7, J For 1i1e Rat Option a, l �"°/t 5°°0f Mawork y py offset intersections to t� 0ad°y Strvot tlotwork �• ae, i reduce cut through • Roundabout *+► �" a .1 - _ '• - and provide I — Potantiai Street Connection j' ♦��'v.r+.r�i....b,. • *�~� connection to RT 1.0 I Traffic Sigsd �•7 al a.a.�""""�. via Sabrina Avenue I • RJpIrtN ibgFAou Access . -,J 1-'+ J __i Nu kayo Transportation Canaction 0* Potential Tile a zo ns ?•---..../_ If Tile Rat Option B is ' • Specimen Trod Extension •_ not included,then this Wetlands O p J lion 13 l i \"_ intersection could fStews r r 1 move further south Tile Flat Road 1 /r w Option B must be Extend Sabrina Ave to p / connect with RT 1.0 north of this point to avoid impacting rural reserves / .-` in. Potential local street or active II .. a4__. 1 (^ transportation stream crossing a--" • ar... c — — Identifylocationof"least 8 RIRO could be Interim impactful"crossing--assumed end closed once perpendicular at the shortest - Internal connections Existing connections crossing.Crossings may be part are complete in RT 2.0 as part of RT 1.0 of later phases of development. s T t :v �,_- Secondary 1 � .� Potential Tile _�'y `- access if needed Flat Road !� r' - ----- Extension • r-''� Ma Tito n as active Option C •.. transportation connection only '"y"j t Significant slope will limit [access to the north Alternative intersection location closer to RI 2.0 ` ir park and maintains ''�• contiguous parcel 1♦ri...r.r... - - -Z ____ -_i___./ — 4Z'N— ltttrf+µ,. )111 rDo not control weal side /' • a r to tru ss, as — - — of Roy Rogers making ; 1. ,pi-- connection to alternative t_ i _ t intersection challenging — Connection would have •.__ v :- impact on natural area but '--- 1 not providing would Align streets in RT 2.0 Isolate the eastern area to street network for Kingston Terrace T FIGURE 5: PRELIMINARY RIVER TERRACE 2.0 STREET NETWORK DIAGRAM. Page 17 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN PERFORMANCE METRICS The Tile Flat extension scenarios were assessed and 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. 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 (PLTS) 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 Page 18 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN 1. VEHICULAR NETWORK The following are performance metrics that compare vehicular travel between the Tile Flat extension scenarios. A. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Description Analysis Al: Comparison of the vehicle miles travelled on the arterial and primary and secondary street networks.This includes the combined VMT on arterials (i.e., Scholls Ferry Road from Tile Flat Road to Roy Rogers Road and Roy Rogers Road from Scholls Ferry Road to Perth Road) and on primary and secondary Streets (i.e., Mountainside Way from Scholls Ferry Road to Roy Rogers Road, Mountainside Way from Sabrina Avenue (south) to Perth Road and Tile Flat Road from Scholls Ferry Road to Mountainside Way). Analysis A2: Comparison of the vehicle miles travelled on just the primary and secondary street network.This includes the combined VMT on Mountainside Way from Scholls Ferry Road to Roy Rogers Road, Mountainside Way from Sabrina Avenue (south)to Perth Road and Tile Flat Road from Scholls Ferry Road to Mountainside Way. Methodology VMT was estimated using the forecasted motor vehicle traffic volumes along roadway segments for 2040 using Washington County's version of the Metro Regional Transportation Demand Model. The volumes were based on the PM peak hour and were multiplied by the length of the segment to estimate the total VMT for each scenario. Al: A scenario performs best if the total VMT decreases more than 1%from no-build, is neutral if there is a change of less than 0.5%from no-build, and performs worst if there is an increase of more than 1%from no- build. A2: A scenario performs best if the share of total VMT for RT 2.0 trips on the primary and secondary street network is greater than 75%, is neutral if it is between 50%and 60%, and performs worst if it is less than 25%. Results and Evaluation Al: Table 1 shows that the overall forecasted VMT on the arterial street network is expected to be fairly similar for each of the scenarios. Scenarios 1 and 3 include a total estimated VMT of over 6,700 along the arterial roadways in the River Terrace 2.0 West area, which is similar to the forecasted VMT under no-build conditions, and that is expected to decrease between 5%and 7%with Scenarios 2 and 4. The estimated VMT on Roy Rogers Road is expected to decrease slightly under all scenarios when compared to Scenario 1, with traffic shifting to Mountainside Way, although some of that shift is negated by other regional traffic shifting to Roy Rogers Road from other nearby congested arterials The estimated VMT on Scholls Ferry Road is expected to decrease with Scenarios 2 and 4 when compared to Scenario 1,with traffic shifting to Tile Flat Road. Page 19 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF VMT ON THE STREET NETWORK Ideal Definition Total VMT on Total VMT on Total Total VMT the Arterial the Primary and VMT Change network(PM Secondary (PM from no- Peak Hour) Street network Peak build (PM Peak Hour) Hour) Total VMT decreases on the Scenario 1 6,761 382 7,143 -0.5% arterial and primary and secondary street network* as Scenario 2 6,397 855 7,252 the RT 2.0 primary and -— secondary street network is Scenario 3 6,729 420 7,149 -0.4% constructed and accommodates Scenario 4 6,254 903 7,156 -0.3% more local trips. Notes:*Includes combined VMT on arterials(i.e.,Scholls Ferry Road from Tile Flat Road to Roy Rogers Road and Roy Rogers Road from Scholls Ferry Road to Perth Road),and on the primary and secondary street network(i.e.,Mountainside Way from Scholls Ferry Road to Roy Rogers Road, Mountainside Way from Sabrina Avenue(south)to Perth Road and Tile Flat Road from Scholls Ferry Road to Mountainside Way). The scenarios were ranked with the following compared to the ideal condition: -0.5%- 1% +-0.5% +0.5% - 1% 1-rrIr from no- from no- from no-build build build A2:Table 2 shows that the overall forecasted VMT on the primary and secondary street network is expected to be mostly local trips under Scenario 1, at 92%, and the share of the total VMT for local trips decreases under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4. In Scenarios 2 and 4, regional trips account for more than 50%of the total VMT on the primary and secondary street network, with these trips utilizing Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way, instead of the surrounding arterials. Page 110 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE I. June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF VMT ON THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STREET NETWORK Ideal Definition VMT of VMT of RT 2.0 Share of Total Regional Trips Trips VMT for RT 2.0 (PM Peak Hour) (PM Peak Hour) Trips Scenario 1 30 352 The RT 2.0 primary and secondary street network* serves local trips Scenario 2 449 406 47% and discourages regional cut- Scenario 3 160 260 62% through traffic. Scenario 4 465 438 48% Notes: * Includes combined VMT on Mountainside Way from Scholls Ferry Road to Roy Rogers Road,Mountainside Way from Sabrina Avenue(south)to Perth Road and Tile Flat Road from Scholls Ferry Road to Mountainside Way. The scenarios were ranked with the following compared to the ideal condition. 60-75%local 50-60% local trips trips p:`,._ B. Quantity of Travel This performance metric compares the change in the forecasted average daily traffic (ADT) volume along the primary and secondary street network including Mountainside Way and Tile Flat Road. Methodology Average daily motor vehicle volumes were forecasted along roadway segments for 2040 using Washington County's version of the Metro Regional Transportation Demand Model. These volumes were estimated using the PM peak hour volumes and multiplying them by a factor of 10 to represent ADT. A scenario performs best if the forecasted ADT volume along the segment is consistent with that of a collector street through a residential neighborhood, with the ideal condition being under 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd). A scenario with a forecasted ADT over 6,000 vpd along a segment performs worst. Results Table 3 shows the forecasted 2040 ADT volume for each scenario along the primary and secondary street network. Figure 6 through Figure 9 show the forecasted 2040 ADT volumes for the street network in the River Terrace 2.0 area. Scenario 1 is forecasted to have the lowest ADT volumes along the primary and secondary street network. Scenarios 2 and 4 were found to draw trips from Scholls Ferry Road and Roy Rogers Road and increase trips on Tile Flat Road and the segments of Mountainside Way south of where Tile Flat Road would connect, as well as on Bull Mountain Road where it connects to Roy Rogers Road. These are street segments internal to the RT 2.0 Page 1 11 Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios RIVER TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN West development and the forecasted 2040 ADT volumes along Mountainside Way for Scenarios 2 and 4 are forecasted to be higher than Scenarios 1 and 3. Scenario 3 does not include the Tile Flat Road extension but extends Mountainside Way to Perth Road. It would result in similar forecasted 2040 ADT volumes along Scholls Ferry Road and Roy Rogers Road compared to Scenario 1,slight increases along Mountainside Way, and a reduction along Bull Mountain Road compared to Scenario 1. TABLE 3: QUANTITY OF TRAVEL ON THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STREET NETWORK Ideal Definition Roadway Segment Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: ADT ADT ADT ADT SW Mountainside Way Scholls Ferry Road to 4,700 3,700 5,200 ,800 Sabrina Avenue Forecasted average daily Sabrina Avenue (north)to 4,000 4,500 traffic volumes on the Jean Louise Road primary and secondary Jean Louise Road to 5,900 3,600 :6;600 street network are Sabrina Avenue (south) consistent with that of a Sabrina Avenue (south)to n/a n/a 3,400 collector through a Perth Road i residential neighborhood, SW Bull Mountain Road with the ideal condition Sabrina Avenue (south)to 5,800 3,400 being under 6,000 ADT. Roy Rogers Road SW Tile Flat Road Roy Rogers Road to n/a 4,000 n/a 4,500 Mountainside Way Notes:The scenarios were ranked with the following compared to the ideal condition: ADT 3,000-6,000 ADT 5,001-6,500 Page 112 RIVER 9 Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Rd 23,900 d�5 $ N Option A �r� Q C Forecasted 2040 ADT 1-1 , -1,500 ADT g _ 1,501 3,000 ADT y.. 1) 3,001 6,000 ADT 3 NMI >6000 ADT Jean l Liig Rd i 1 al 3,000 ,� Ityn kJ i, " i g IA RT 2.0 WEST '^ , PI n 111111— / SW La ln__ ri 2.a SOUTil -- 1.::,fx,,n, FIGURE 6: FORECASTED 2040 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FOR SCENARIO 1. Page 113 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN rtaiireiw, fetrild ___,/ d'; 20,600 0�^ & tn Option B # Forecasted 2040 ADT cat f N o"" . <=1,500ADT ". 1,501-3,000 ADT 4k000 �' X 3,001-6,000 ADT 4FP f F \$ 4 i - =•6000 ADT G F ,q Jeant lilaitd to 1g t it. J , 'rs.bod two rdaln Rd 1 N r 114 RT 2.0 WEST <pp .' av 'Y. l t 1.. . . N I RT 2.0 SOUT4 w ppp..,��� H na FIGURE 7: FORECASTED 2040 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FOR SCENARIO 2. Page 114 RIVER 1 Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN IN Rd .es 24,100:.. ...... y Fe $ �, Option C 3 • Forecasted 2040 ADT n mg .-_1,500ADT of ,► +. f1 '� 1,501 3,000 ADT 3,001 6,000 ADT ~ MB >6000 ADT Inca , an 449.1100 1s 1si J' $ 1,700 E: . ruin Rd 2. RT 2.0 WEST 14 p 4400 y II.. Mgt R ... e6 14 ...I ,1 WM*2.0S091 1. :- 1 •c• T 17 ltt FIGURE 8: FORECASTED 2040 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FOR SCENARIO 3. Page 115 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN 19,6Q0 V Option D r !t Forecasted 2040 ADT iT NMI <=1,500ADT ? 1,501-3,000 ADT S00 • r — 3,001-6,000 ADT -� >6000 ADT `� f R t ,ant list lid ill — r.,• $ fiel & 3,4bo rdain Rd ei 1. i RT 2.0 WEST � rt ,? LI ! 4,Nit) 2 / k 2.0 Sd L Mt* Fr riiv a FIGURE 9: FORECASTED 7040 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FOR SCENARIO 4. Page 116 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN C. Intersection Capacity This metric compares the traffic operational performance at surrounding intersections along the arterial network on Scholls Ferry Road and Roy Rogers Road. Methodology The Highway Capacity Manual 6`h Edition methodology was used to calculate volume-to-capacity(v/c) ratios at intersections for the weekday PM peak hour. A scenario performs best if the intersection is forecasted to operate with a v/c ratio that is at or below the current mobility target and performs worst if it operates higher than it. Results As shown in Table 4, the intersections are forecasted to operate with similar v/c ratios under each scenario. The Mountainside Way extension to Perth Road included in Scenario 3, and when both it and the Tile Flat Road extension are combined under Scenario 4 allows for a slight improvement in forecasted operations at intersections along Scholls Ferry Road and at the Roy Rogers Road &Jean Louise Drive intersection. TABLE 4: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS (2040 PM PEAK) Ideal Definition Intersection Volume-to-Capacity(V/C) Ratio Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Intersections are SW Scholls Ferry Road/ forecasted to be less SW Tile Flat Road congested once the SW Scholls Ferry Road/ RT 2.0 Primary and SW Mountainside Way Secondary Street SW Scholls Ferry Road/ ;'�� network is SW Roy Rogers Road/ constructed,with SW 175tr' Avenue intersections SW Roy Rogers Road/ forecasted to SW Jean Louise Road operate with a v/c SW Roy Rogers Road/ ratio that Is at or SW Bull Mountain Road below the current SW Roy Rogers Road/ 0.99 mobility target. SW Perth Road Notes:* Indicates an intersection that is forecasted to operate above the current mobility target of 0.99 v/c. The scenarios were ranked with the following compared to the ideal condition: v/c 1.00-1.05 v/c 1.06 1.10 Page 117 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN The scenarios also alter turning movement patterns at intersections along Roy Rogers Road. Scenarios 2 and 4, that extend Tile Flat Road to Mountainside Way, add traffic to Bull Mountain Road, which results in slight degradation of forecasted operations at the Roy Rogers Road intersection. Scenario 3 that extends Mountainside Way to Perth Road draws traffic away from Bull Mountain Road,which slightly improves operations at the Roy Rogers Road intersection but results in slight degradation at the Roy Rogers Road & Perth Road intersection. It was found that after assuming the Tile Flat Road extension to Mountainside Way was in place and some drivers use that route instead of remaining on Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road,that any new capacity available in this segment was filled by other regional traffic. In other words,future congestion on parallel arterials routes (such as OR 99W) could potentially cause drivers to re-route from those roadways to Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road through the River Terrace 2.0 West and South area, which has an influence on the traffic operational results shown in Table 4. The model assigns vehicles to the shortest travel time routes for these trips, however drivers may not be that efficient in determining this, at least initially. D. Travel Time This performance metric compares the travel time for regional trips on the primary collector streets and along Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road. Methodology Average daily motor vehicle volumes were forecasted along roadway segments for 2040 using Washington County's version of the Metro Regional Transportation Demand Model. These volumes were estimated using the PM peak hour and include vehicle trips that start and end outside of the River Terrace 2.0 area but travel along the adjacent arterials (i.e., Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road). The total average travel time for regional trips (i.e.,trips that have an origin and destination outside of the River Terrace 2.0 area) between the Scholls Ferry Road intersection with Tile Flat Road and the Roy Rogers Road intersection with Perth Road was calculated for each scenario. The scenarios were ranked based on the following criteria: average travel time for regional trips is forecasted to be -61 seconds or more from no-build (or half an average cycle length at a signalized intersection), -30 to -60 seconds from no-build,within 30 seconds of no-build, +30 to +60 seconds from no-build, +61 seconds or more from no-build. Results Table 5 shows that the average travel time for regional trips (i.e.,trips that have an origin and destination outside of the River Terrace 2.0 area) between the S Scholls Ferry Road intersection with Tile Flat Road and the Roy Rogers Road intersection with Perth Road is around 7 minutes in each scenario. The extension of Tile Flat Road to Mountainside Way(Scenario 2) is not expected to change the average travel time for these regional trips, while the extension of Mountainside Way to Perth Road (Scenario 3) slightly increases the average travel time for these regional trips. Although some traffic is shifting from Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road to Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way under Scenarios 2 and 3, the excess capacity from that shift is largely negated by other regional traffic shifting to Roy Rogers Road from other nearby congested arterials, therefore the average travel time along these corridors remains similar under these scenarios. Page 118 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN However, there is a travel time benefit of roughly 0.3 minutes or 18 seconds for regional trips when both Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way are extended (Scenario 4). This represents approximately a 4% reduction in trip time compared to Scenario 1. Since more trips are shifting to Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way under this scenario,the excess capacity is not entirely taken up by other regional traffic, and therefore the average travel times along Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road are slightly reduced when compared to Scenario 1 through the River Terrace 2.0 area. TABLE 5: COMPARISON OF TRAVEL TIME FOR REGIONAL TRIPS Ideal Definition Average Travel Time in the Change from no- PM Peak Hour(Minutes)* build(seconds) Forecasted travel times for Scenario 1 6.91 -11 regional trips decrease by more than one half of a traffic signal Scenario 2 6.88 -13 cycle(more than 30 seconds) Scenario 3 7.07 -2 once the RT 2.0 Primary and Secondary Street network is - Scenario 4 6.63 -28 constructed. The scenarios were ranked with the following compared to the ideal condition: -30-60 secs from +-30 secs from no- + 30-60 secs from no-build build no-build it 11•� .?►11 .' Page 119 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN 2. MULTIMODAL NETWORK The following are performance metrics that compare bicycling, pedestrian, and transit travel between the primary street network scenarios. A. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BITS) This performance metric compares the types and scale of facilities and crossings needed to maintain low-stress conditions for bicyclists along the primary collector streets based on expected traffic volumes and speeds. Methodology This analysis is based on the ODOT BLTS methodology outlined in the Analysis Procedures Manual Chapter 14— Section 14.4 and incorporating best practice principles from the 2024 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. • It is assumed that the bicycling network in RT 2.0 will be designed to BLTS 1 (i.e., the highest level of comfort)to encourage bicyclists of all ages and abilities to use this mode for short- and medium- distance trips. • BLTS 1 needs to be maintained on segments, at intersections, and at crossings for the network to achieve BLTS 1. • The Tile Flat Road extension and other primary streets are assumed to be collectors with a 2-lane cross- section and turn lanes at arterial and other key intersections and with a posted speed limit of 25 mph or less. • Note that all widths for bike lanes are "useable widths," which is defined by the 2024 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities as "a smooth, rideable surface clear of surface defects,joints, and other potential obstructions to minimize crash risk."The useable width should not include a gutter, unless the gutter is integrated into the full width of the bicycle facility. Results & Evaluation Below are the design requirements to maintain BLTS 1: • Segment BLTS: cross-sections should include a shared use path or separated bike lanes. If volumes and speeds are lower, buffered bike lanes may be appropriate. See Appendix A—Table Al for more detailed descriptions of required design criteria. All scenarios will be designed similarly and meet BLTS 1 at the expected speeds and volumes. • Intersection and crossing BLTS: design treatments to meet BLTS 1 at unsignalized, signalized, and roundabout intersections as well as at midblock crossings are described in Appendix A—Table A2. Signalized and roundabout intersections will be designed similarly and meeting BLTS 1 for all scenarios. The type of unsignalized crossing required depends on traffic volumes. For a 2-lane street at 25 mph or less, a median crossing is required when traffic volumes exceed 3,000 vpd. Based on these criteria and the expected ADT(see metric 1B), the following unsignalized crossing infrastructure is needed: Scenario 1: median crossings on Mountainside Way north of Jean Louise Drive. No median required elsewhere. This is a total of 4 median crossings. Scenario 2: median crossings on all streets including Tile Flat Road, Mountainside Way, and Bull Mountain Road.This is a total of 9 median crossings. Page 120 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Scenario 3: median crossings on Mountainside Way north of Bull Mountain Road. No median required elsewhere. This is a total of 7 median crossings. Scenario 4: median crossings on all streets including Tile Flat Road, Mountainside Way, and Bull Mountain Road. This is a total of 10 median crossings. Scenario 1 represents the lowest investment needed to achieve BLTS 1. Other scenarios will have some additional cost and right-of-way dedication associated with the additional median crossing needs. These costs will have some impact but are not considered significant relative to the overall cost. Right-of-way dedication and the impact on development yield is considered in metric 4B. Table 6 summarizes the level of infrastructure needed to achieve BLTS 1 under each scenario. TABLE 6: EVALUATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO MEET BLTS 1 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS TO MEET BITS 1 SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 Segments Ideal condition- minimal investment to create BLTS 1 Intersections BLTS 1 achieved BLTS 1 achieved BLTS 1 achieved with median with median with median Ideal condition- crossings needed crossings needed crossings needed minimal investment at all (9) locations at some additional at all (10) to create BLTS 1 (7) locations locations Overall Performance Achieves BLTS 1 Achieves BLTS 1 Achieves BLTS 1 — Relative with some costs with some costs with some costs Investment Needed for median for additional for median to Meet BITS 1 crossings at all median crossings at all locations crossings locations Ideal condition- minimal investment to create BLTS 1 — B. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS) This performance metric compares the types and scale of facilities and crossings needed to maintain low-stress conditions for pedestrians along the primary collector streets based on typical crossing spacing standards, expected traffic volumes, and speeds. Methodology This analysis was conducted based on the ODOT PLTS methodology outlined in the Analysis Procedures Manual Chapter 14—Section 14.5. • It is assumed that the pedestrian network in RT 2.0 will be designed to PLTS 1 (i.e.,the highest level of comfort) to support accessibility goals and encourage people to use this mode for short-distance trips. Page 121 RIVER 2 Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN • PLTS 1 needs to be maintained on segments, at intersections, and at crossings for the network to achieve PLTS 1. • The Tile Flat Road extension and other primary streets are assumed to be collectors with a 2-lane cross- section and turn lanes at arterial and other key intersections and with a posted speed limit of 25 mph or less. Results& Evaluation Below are the design requirements to maintain PLTS 1: • Segment PLTS: sidewalk widths should be >_ 6' in general and z 8' in higher traffic and commercial areas. Sidewalks need to be in good condition with a sufficient width landscape or hardened buffer between it and the roadway. See Appendix B—Table B1 for more detailed descriptions of required design criteria. All scenarios will be designed similarly and meet BLTS 1 at the expected speeds and volumes. • Intersection and crossing PLTS: design treatments to meet PLTS 1 at unsignalized, signalized, and roundabout intersections as well as at midblock crossings are described in Appendix B—Table B2. Signalized and roundabout intersections will be designed similarly and meeting BLTS 1 for all scenarios. The type of unsignalized crossing required depends on traffic volumes. For a 2-lane street at 25 mph or less, a median crossing is required when traffic volumes exceed 5,000 vpd. Based on these criteria and the expected ADT(see metric 1B), the following unsignalized crossing infrastructure is needed: Scenario 1: no median crossings are required to accommodate pedestrian crossings. o Scenario 2: median crossings on Mountainside Way south of the Tile Flat Road extension. No median crossings are required elsewhere to accommodate pedestrian crossings. This is a total of 6 median crossings. o Scenario 3: median crossings on Mountainside Way north of Sabrina Avenue. No median crossings are required elsewhere to accommodate pedestrian crossings. This is a total of 2 median crossings. o Scenario 4: median crossings on Mountainside Way from the Tile Flat Road extension to Bull Mountain Road, No median crossings are required elsewhere to accommodate pedestrian crossings. This is a total of 6 median crossings. Scenario 1 represents the lowest investment needed to achieve PLTS 1. Other scenarios will have some additional cost and right-of-way dedication associated with the additional median crossing needs. These costs will have some impact but are not considered significant relative to the overall cost. Right-of-way dedication and the impact on development yield is considered in metric 4B. Page 122 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Table 7 summarizes the level of infrastructure needed to achieve PLTS 1 under each scenario Page 123 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 7: EVALUATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO MEET PLTS 1 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 Segments Ideal condition- minimal investment to create BLTS 1 Intersections Median crossing Median crossings Median crossings needed in some needed in very few needed in some Ideal condition- (6) locations to (2) locations to (6) locations to minimal investment meet PLTS 1 meet PLTS 1 meet PLTS 1 to create BLTS 1 Overall Performance ' Achieves PLTS 1 Achieves PLTS 1 { Achieves PLTS 1 — Relative with some costs with some costs with some costs Investment Needed for additional for additional for additional to Meet PLTS 1 median crossings median crossings median crossings Ideal condition- minimal investment to create BLTS 1 C. Connectivity This metric compares the directness and convenience of the multimodal network and identifies any barriers resulting from the primary street network scenarios related to accessing regional destinations as well as local destinations including commercial districts, parks, trails, transit stops, etc. Methodology The analysis compares performance in three sub-metrics: • Arterial connections: this compares the number of connections to the arterial street network with a higher number increasing access for future residents to regional destinations. • Internal street connectivity: a qualitative review of how well the internal street network supports development and a comparison of local street permeability measured by intersection density—the number of intersections per mile of primary street network. • Walking catchment:this includes a GIS walkshed analysis to compare the percentage of residential development in RT 2.0 that is within a %2 and 1-mile (i.e-, 10- or 20-minute) walk of key destinations including the two commercial areas in RT 2.0 West and the existing Mountainside High School. Note that the analysis only includes the primary street network.The local street network may increase the percentage of development within each walking catchment. However, it is expected that the relative increase would be the same across scenarios. Page 124 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Results Table 8 compares external street network connectivity between scenarios. Table 9 compares internal street network connectivity. TABLE 8: COMPARISON OF EXTERNAL NETWORK CONNECTIVITY SCENARIO ARTERIAL EXTERNAL CONNECTIVITY CONNECTIONS A 3 Provides connections to Scholls Ferry Road and Roy Rogers Road. B 4 Extending Tile Flat Road provides a more direct vehicular connection to regional destinations northwest of RT 2.0. C 4 Extending Mountainside Way provides an additional connection to RT 1.0 and RT 2.0 South without having to use the arterial network. O 5 Extending Tile Flat Road provides a more direct vehicular connection to regional destinations northwest of RT 2.0. Extending Mountainside Way provides an additional connection to RT 1.0 and RT 2.0 South without having to use the arterial network. TABLE 9: COMPARISON OF INTERNAL NETWORK CONNECTIVITY SCENARIO CONNECTIVITY INTERSECTIONS* LENGTH PRIMARY (MILES) STREET INTERSECTION DENSITY (INTXNS/MILE) A Provides internal circulation for RT 8 1.05 7.6 2.0. Future development on Vandermost Road is disconnected from the rest of RT 2.0. Development potential is limited on Vandermost Road. B Provides internal circulation for RT 10 1.69 5.9 2.0. Future development on Vandermost Road would be connected to the rest of RT 2.0. C Provides internal circulation for RT 10 1.68 6.0 2.0, Future development on Vandermost Road is disconnected from the rest of RT 2.0. Development potential is limited on Vandermost Road. D Provides internal circulation for RT 12 2.32 5.2 2.0. Future development on Vandermost Road would be connected to the rest of RT 2.0. * Includes intersections with the external street network including Scholls Ferry Road, Roy Rogers Road, Perth Road, and Vandermost Road. Page 125 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Scenario 1 provides the internal circulation required to support development in RT 2.0 West and includes three connections to the arterial street network at Scholls Ferry Road & Mountainside Way, Roy Rogers Road &Jean Louise Drive, and Roy Rogers Road & Bull Mountain Road. Additional street segments are not required to support development. However, extending Tile Flat Road as part of Scenarios 2 or 4 would provide a fourth connection to the arterial street network and a more direct vehicular connection to regional destinations northwest of RT 2.0. Extending Mountainside Way south to connect to Roy Rogers Road at Perth Road as part of Scenarios 3 or 4 would increase connectivity to RT 1.0 and RT 2.0 South by providing another east-west access route that could distribute traffic and shorten travel between some destinations in these areas. Scenario 3 would provide four connections to the arterial street network and Scenario 4 would provide five connections. Extending Tile Flat Road as part of Scenarios 2 or 4 would provide a connection to any future development on Vandermost Road, which would otherwise rely on the arterial street network (i.e., Scholls Ferry Road)to connect to the rest of RT 2.0. Development potential along Vandermost Road is limited and may not justify the cost of providing an additional connection along the Tile Flat Road alignment solely for the purpose of additional connectivity. Table 9 shows that Scenario 1 has the highest intersection density because it has the lowest length of street, but all scenarios would provide good local connectivity to the developable areas of RT 2.0 West. The results of the walkshed analysis in Table 10 show that with the extension of Tile Flat Road (Scenario 2), Mountainside Way (Scenario 3), or both (Scenario 4),there is an incremental increase in the amount of residential development that can access the Scholls Ferry & Mountainside Way (SFMW) commercial area, the Mountainside High School, and the Roy Rogers& Bull Mountain (RRBM) commercial area within a %: mile walkshed—approximately a 5%to 15% increase. Table 11 shows that these extensions increase the amount of residential development within a 1-mile walkshed by up to 10%to 30%. Maps of the walkshed analysis are included in Appendix C. TABLE 10: PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A HALF MILE WALKSHED ( 10- MINUTE WALK) SCENARIO COMMERCIAL A COMMERCIAL B MOUNTAINSIDE HIGH (SFMW) (RRBM) SCHOOL A 45% 20% 30% B 55% 20% 35% C 45% 35% 30% D 55% i 35% 35% Page 126 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 11: PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A ONE MILE WALKSHED (20- MINUTE WALK) SCENARIO COMMERCIAL A COMMERCIAL B MOUNTAINSIDE HIGH (SFMW) (RRBM) SCHOOL A 70% 60% 65% B 80% 80% 70% C 80% 75% 70% D 85% 90% I 75% Evaluation Table 12 compares multimodal connectivity between scenarios.Scenario 1 provides sufficient connectivity for development with three access points to the arterial road network, good connectivity to River Terrace 1.0 and South Cooper Mountain, and the highest density of intersections (meaning more opportunities for crossings, etc.). It does have a lower walkshed coverage for key destinations in the neighborhood than other scenarios. TABLE 12: EVALUATION OF MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 External Network 3 4 4 Connectivity I (# of arterial connections) Ideal condition - highest number of connections Intersection Density 5.9 6.0 5.2 (intersections per mile) Ideal condition - highest density of intersections Internal Network Good Additional Additional Connectivity connectivity to connectivity to connectivity to - RT 1.0/2.0 and Vandermost RT 1.0/2.0 Ideal condition - highest South Cooper number of connections Mountain Walkshed Analysis 60%-70% 5%-20% more 5%-15% more coverage coverage coverage Ideal condition - highest coverage percentage Overall Performance for Provides Provides Provides Connectivity sufficient additional local additional local _ connectivity for and regional connectivity Ideal condition - high development connectivity and walkshed performance in local and and good coverage* Page 127 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 regional connectivity and walkshed and walkshed walkshed coverage coverage coverage* * Increased traffic volumes and lower intersection densities could increase vehicle speeds and may require traffic calming and additional midblock pedestrian crossings to meet desirable crossing spacing standards. Other scenarios were evaluated higher than Scenario 1. Scenario 2 provides an additional connection to the regional network via the Tile Flat Road extension. This also increases the percentage of development that can walk to commercial areas and the high school. It also provides a secondary connection for development on Vandermost Road. However, development potential in that area is limited, and this benefit is not considered significant. Scenario 3 provides an additional connection to RT 1.0 and RT 2.0 South and additional walkshed coverage. Scenario 4 provides both the local and regional connectivity benefits but would have the lowest intersection density. The increased regional connectivity will increase traffic volumes and lower intersection densities could increase vehicle speeds and may require traffic calming and additional midblock pedestrian crossings to meet desirable crossing spacing standards. O. Vulnerable Road User Safety This metric compares the traffic exposure and relative safety risk(i.e., number of lanes, crossing distance, increased conflict with turning movements, etc.) for vulnerable road users including pedestrians and bicyclists traveling along the primary collector streets and crossing at key intersections including at Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road. Methodology Analysis conducted for the City of Tigard's Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) shows that the High Injury Network (HIN) is most correlated to ADT, functional class, speed, and demographics (e.g., Oregon social equity index, percentage of households with no vehicles, etc.). There is no material difference between scenarios with respect to the functional class, speed, and demographic factors, i.e., in all scenarios the Tile Flat extension will be a collector street designed at the same speed and serving the same demographics. However, there will be increased exposure—including for pedestrians and bicyclists—resulting from differences in traffic volumes and the length of the different scenarios. • Segment crash exposure is calculated as: Sum of(segment ADT * segment miles of road * segment #of lanes) Different scenarios will also result in different turning movement patterns in the network. This can increase crash exposure for pedestrians and bicyclists at intersection crossings and affect the cost to mitigate these impacts. • Turning movement crash exposure is calculated as follows: Sum of turning movements conflicting with pedestrian crossings at an intersection. Qualitative analysis of turning movements that conflict with likely school and commercial area pedestrian routes. Page 128 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Results& Evaluation Segment crash exposure is shown in Table 13. Scenario 1 has the lowest internal traffic volumes and therefore results in the lowest vulnerable road user (VRU) crash exposure. If the total length of all scenarios is considered, the increase in street network length and traffic volumes results in all other scenarios having higher VRU crash exposure. Scenario 3 is somewhat (43%) higher than Scenario 1 whereas Scenarios 2 and 4 are significantly higher(124%and 191%) than Scenario 1. Segment exposure was evaluated as follows: • The scenario with the lowest segment exposure was rated as having a medium impact in that it contributes some level of crash risk. • Scenarios within a 50%increase of the best performing scenario were considered to have a significant impact. • Scenarios with a more than 50%increase from the best performing scenario were considered to have a very significant impact on crash risk. TABLE 13: COMPARISON OF SEGMENT CRASH EXPOSURE SEGMENT CRASH EXPOSURE (VEHICLE LANE MILES) SCENARIO 1 SCEN2 RIO SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 All Segments 7,290 1414:14 10,43G ,'f'.,''irl Ideal definition - VRUs crash Lowest overall VRU crash ;t;'•1 exposure is minimized (zero VRU crash x. a i,j exposure is vehicle-lane-miles) exposure co s•i•e abl•y somewhat F.1'11iI4I-'€(;If„• igher than, higher than li_1�t a"-ii ern is Scenario 1 -i ,:71-f-tR +43%/0) {, �1 * This analysis compares exposure on Mountainside Way from Scholls Ferry Road to Bull Mountain Road and on Bull Mountain Road from Mountainside Way to Roy Rogers Road. The location of turning movement exposure will change based on the scenario.Turning movement crash exposure is shown in Table 14. For Scenario 1, major turning movements will occur to and from the arterial street network at Scholls Ferry Road & Mountainside Way (505 total turning movements during the 2040 PM peak hour) and at Roy Rogers Road & Bull Mountain Road (860 total turning movements during the 2040 PM peak hour). These are controlled, signalized locations where these conflicts are expected although the former will be along a primary walking route to access Mountainside High School. This scenario would see the lowest turning movement crash exposure internal to the development along the primary walking and bicycling routes on Mountainside Way and Bull Mountain Road. This scenario would see 80 total turning movements during the 2040 PM peak hour at the Tile Flat Road Extension & Mountainside Way intersection. Page 129 RIVER I Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 14: COMPARISON OF TURNING MOVEMENT CRASH EXPOSURE INTERSECTION TOTAL TURNING MOVEMENT CONFLICTS WITH PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (PM PEAK VEHICLES PER HOUR) SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 1 2 3 4 Scholls Ferry Road / Mountainside Way I 505 41 455 530 455 , (+11%) (lowest) (+16%) (lowest) Tile Flat Road/ Mountainside Way 80 100 •?�' (lowest) (+250/0) ; T;;,.1, Roy Rogers Road/ Bull Mountain Road 860 755 (+14%)' (lowest) Roy Rogers Road / Perth Road 225 2S5 (lowest) (+13%) Total Turning Movement Conflicts 1,445 vph 1,725 vph :,610 vph , •1;$, !,yphl Ideal definition - VRUs crash Lowest VRU crash VRU crash 1 {U ra's : exposure is minimized (zero vph overall VRU exposure exposure r.e turning movement conflicts) crash somewhat somewhat ,_o11de li y exposure higher than higher than •her flan' Scenario : Scenario 1 (+19%) (+11%) -k29-To)i Scenario 3 would increase turning movement crash exposure when compared to Scenario 1 at the Scholls Ferry Road & Mountainside Way intersection (i.e., 530 total turning movements during the 2040 PM peak hour) but would reduce turning movements at the Roy Rogers Road & Bull Mountain Road intersection (i.e., 755 total turning movements during the 2040 PM peak hour) and shift them further south to the Roy Rogers Road & Perth Road intersection where there may be fewer pedestrian crossings expected.Turning movement exposure internal to the development would increase somewhat under this scenario (i.e., +20 total turning movements during the 2040 PM peak hour at the Tile Flat Road Extension & Mountainside Way intersection). Scenarios 2 and 4 would reduce turning movements when compared to Scenario 1 at the Scholls Ferry Road & Mountainside Way intersection (i.e., -50 total turning movements during the 2040 PM peak hour) and increase turning movements when compared to Scenario 1 at the Roy Rogers & Bull Mountain Road intersection (i.e., +240 and +110 total turning movements during the 2040 PM peak hour respectively). These scenarios would also increase turning movement exposure internal to the RT 2.0 WEST development (i.e., +225 total turning movements during the 2040 PM peak hour at the Tile Flat Road Extension & Mountainside Way intersection), along what will likely be a primary walking route to access Mountainside High School and the Scholls Ferry& Mountainside Way commercial area. Larger or more intense intersection designs-such as a protected intersections, roundabouts, or signals-may be required to address left- and right-turning conflicts with active transportation users at this intersection. Page ) 30 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Turning movement exposure was evaluated as follows: • The scenario with the lowest exposure was rated as having a medium impact in that it contributes some level of crash risk. • Scenarios within a 25% increase of the best performing scenario were considered to have a significant impact. • Scenarios with a more than 25% increase from the best performing scenario were considered to have a very significant impact on crash risk Table 15 summarizes the evaluation of vulnerable road user safety. Scenario 1 represents the lowest vulnerable road user crash exposure both in terms of segment and turning movement exposure. Scenarios 2 and 4 represent somewhat higher exposures from increased traffic movements on the internal street network. Scenario 4 considerably increases crash exposure because it has the highest internal street traffic volumes and changed turning movement patterns conflicting with pedestrian crossing routes. TABLE 15: EVALUATION OF VULNERABLE ROAD USER SAFETY SCENT RIO SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO SCENARIO 4 Segment Crash Exposure 7,290 10,430 'i yar, Ideal definition - VRUs crash Lowest VRU crash . ,! ._, , exposure is minimized (zero overall VRU 4:..T;Mf::-Ilti 1 exposure is 10.A <� ' vehicle-lane-miles) crash :,01E`:Cs F'Jj somewhat exposure 3i24:] higher than ,I A r,r . . ;.<i. Scenario 1 .• (+43%) ' Total Turning Movement Conflicts 1,445 vph 1,725 vph 1,610 vph Ideal definition - VRUs crash Lowest VRU crash VRU crash exposure is minimized (zero overall VRU exposure exposure vph turning movement crash somewhat higher somewhat conflicts) exposure than Scenario 1 higher than , r •i (+190m) Scenario 1 (-• 11%) - Overall Performance for VRU Safety Lowest VRU crash VRU crash VRU crash VRU crash exposure exposure exposure Ideal definition - VRUs crash exposure exposure higher than somewhat considerably.. is minimized (zero) Scenario 1 higher than higher than Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Page 131 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN E. Future Transit Service This metric compares the connectivity, travel time, and coverage performance for potential future transit service along the primary street network. Methodology The project team understands that TriMet will be extending service to Mountainside High School by 2028 as part of its Forward Together service expansion plan. TriMet would need to show >10 predicted boarding rides per hour to consider future service in the new development areas. Areas of River Terrace 1.0 and 2.0, South Cooper Mountain, and Kingston Terrace may all at some point meet this metric. There are numerous ways to service these areas with transit including regional services reaching into all or parts of these areas or local services to circulate and collect passengers for transfer at a regional transit hub. Street design standards will consider transit vehicle needs to make sure that the primary street network can accommodate future transit service. The Tile Flat Extension scenarios were evaluated to assess whether any of the scenarios created barriers or additional opportunities for future transit service compared to other scenarios. This included considering the amount of flexibility each scenario provides for route planning and circulation, potential destinations along the service route, and the potential to create regional transit hubs. Results& Evaluation Table 16 shows that Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 provide additional route flexibility but the additional connections beyond Scenario 1 are likely redundant for transit as the most effective route through RT2.0 would be via Mountainside Way and Bull Mountain Road.This route covers a significant portion of development, provides better connections to adjacent neighborhoods,would serve the two proposed commercial districts in RT2.0, and could help create transit and mobility hubs at mixed-use commercial nodes. Increases in traffic on the internal street network (see Metric 1B) could increase transit travel times under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4. Page 132 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Table 17 summarizes the evaluation of future transit service for RT 2.0. The primary transit route along Mountainside Way and Bull Mountain Road provides good coverage to the RT 2.0 development.This route is the most likely to be used under all scenarios to ensure good access to commercial hubs. Scenario 1 does not provide any route flexibility but would minimize transit delays as the lowest traffic volume scenario. Scenario 2 provides a route option on Tile Flat Road although that route is unlikely given residential densities along this corridor compared to others (e.g., Mountainside Way through South Cooper Mountain). Scenarios 3 and 4 do provide additional route options via the Mountainside Way extension to Perth Road that could provide secondary service to RT 1.0 and RT 2.0 South. Scenarios 2, 3,and 4 see increased traffic volumes on the primary street network that could result in transit delays. TABLE 16: COMPARISON OF FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICE SCENARIO TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS A • This scenario would allow for an efficient extension of existing service along Scholls Ferry Road to circulate through RT 2.0 West via Mountainside Way and into RT 1.0 via Bull Mountain Road before returning to Scholls Ferry Road to connect to the Washington Square Transit Center. • It could also support local or microtransit service connecting RT 1.0 and 2.0, Kingston Terrace, and South Cooper Mountain. • The commercial node at Scholls Ferry Road & Mountainside Way could serve as a regional transit hub and mobility hub. B • This scenario may offer an additional route option for any services using Tile Flat Road though it is likely service would run through South Cooper Mountain and down Mountainside Way making this additional connection redundant for transit. • Routing transit along the extension of Tile Flat Road would deviate the route from the commercial district at Scholls Ferry Road & Mountainside Way. C • This scenario may offer an additional route option to serve RT 1.0, RT 2.0 South, and Kingston Terrace using the Mountainside Way extension to Perth Road (without having to use the arterial street network). Base service is likely to run along Mountainside Way and Bull Mountain Road through RT 2.0 West. • Routing transit along the extension of Mountainside Way would deviate the route from the commercial district at Roy Rogers Road & Bull Mountain Road. D • This scenario may offer an additional route option to serve RT 1.0, RT 2.0 South, and Kingston Terrace using the Mountainside Way extension to Perth Road (without having to use the arterial street network). Base service is likely to run along Mountainside Way and Bull Mountain Road through RT 2.0 West. • Routing transit along the extension of Mountainside Way would deviate the route from the commercial district at Roy Rogers Road & Bull Mountain Road. • This scenario may offer an additional route option using the Tile Flat Road extension though it is likely service would run through South Cooper Mountain and down Mountainside Way making this additional connection redundant for transit. • Routing transit along the extension of Tile Flat Road would deviate the route from the commercial district at Scholls Ferry Road & Mountainside Way. Page I33 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 17: EVALUATION OF FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICE SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 Provides a Primary Service Route Through RT2.0 Ideal definition - provides a primary route option with good residential and commercial access Additional Route Options Primary route Additional option only route option Ideal definition - with Tile Flat options for alternative extension but routes that provide does not serve additional coverage significant development Commercial Areas Impacted by Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Routes routes would routes would not routes would not pass by the pass by the not pass by the Ideal definition - transit SFMW RRBM SFMW or RRBM passes by both commercial commercial area commercial commercial areas area areas Potential for Transit Delay due to Lowest traffic Higher traffic Slightly higher u - Traffic volumes will volumes on traffic volumes result in Mountainside on Mountainside ,. Ideal definition - no delay lowest transit Way will Way but similar to transit from traffic delays increase transit to Scenario I delay compared to Scenario 1 Overall Performance for Future Primary Alternative Alternative Alternative Transit route routes routes could routes could provides available but provide reduce Ideal definition - high performance good may reduce additional commercial in base coverage, route options, coverage and coverage. residential exposure. and minimal transit delay lowest traffic Traffic coverage but Traffic volumes volumes may reduce volumes may minimize result in commercial result in delays some transit exposure. transit delays delays Page 134 RIVER 9 Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN 3. ENVIRONMENTAL / LIVABILITY The following provides performance metrics that are proposed to compare environmental and livability characteristics between the primary street network scenarios. A. GHG and Emissions This metric compares the relative scale and location of occurrence of GHG and emissions along the primary collector streets. Methodology The amount of transportation-related greenhouse gas and other emissions produced by vehicle operations depends on: • The mix of vehicle types and their emitting characteristics. For example, the percentage of internal combustion engines, diesel engines, heavy vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and all electric vehicles. • Vehicle miles traveled: the number of miles traveled by each vehicle type. Where these emissions occur is also important in terms of whether there are disproportionate impacts to residents, school children, or other vulnerable populations. GHG and other emissions will generally follow VMT patterns (see Metric 1A) with some variation depending on the fleet mix of different traffic components. It is unknown whether the vehicle fleet mix of residents moving to RT 2.0 will be significantly different to the fleet mix of the surrounding street network.This may be influenced by development standards for RT 2.0 that could encourage the adoption of electric vehicles for those residents that will own vehicles. For example, development standards may require or incentivize on-site charging options for residences with garages and/or electric vehicle (EV) charging in multifamily parking facilities and publicly available parking lots. These requirements could result in traffic to and from the development producing fewer per mile emissions than external traffic that might cut through the neighborhood. In that case, impacts would follow similar patterns to Metric 1A1—VMT on the primary and secondary street network with Scenario 1 having the lowest potential for emissions internal to the RT 2.0 West because it includes primarily trips related to the RT 2.0 West development and has the fewest regional trips passing through the neighborhood. VMT was calculated for the component of regional traffic expected to cut-through the neighborhood as part of Metric 1A1 and is included in Table 18. Results & Evaluation Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 will attract higher volumes of regional "cut-through" trips compared to Scenario 1 and will result in higher VMT(see Table 18).This could result in higher emissions internal to the RT 2.0 West development and increased exposure for local residents, school aged children walking to school, at parks and community gathering spaces, and near environmentally sensitive locations such as streams and wetlands. Page 135 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 18: EVALUATION OF GHG AND EMISSIONS • SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 Cut-through VMT (2040) 300 VMT per day 1,600 VMT per day Ideal definition - cut-through Lowest potential Emissions VMT is minimized (zero) for emissions in potential is RT 2,0 somewnat higher than Scenario 1 (+433%) .A cut through trip is defined as one that starts and ends outside of the River Terrace 2.0 area,but travels along Tile Flat Road,Mountainside Way,or Sabrina Avenue and through the River Terrace 2.0 area.The total for all scenarios is based on the segment of Mountainside Way,south of the Tile Flat Road intersection B. Natural Resource Impacts This metric compares the number of stream crossings and impacts to specimen trees and groves, wetlands, and impervious surface under each of the primary street network scenarios. Methodology The analysis compares scenarios for the following performance measures: • Stream crossings: A comparison of the number of stream crossings required for each scenario. The primary street network for RT 2.0 West shown on Figure 5 was designed to minimize the number and extent of stream crossings. Crossing alignment and location could shift to further minimize impacts and costs but the assumptions in Figure 5 are sufficient for an order of magnitude comparison of potential impacts. o Scenarios were rated based on the number of crossings required. Given the significance of stream crossings, scenarios needing additional crossings were rated as having higher impacts to natural resources. • Specimen trees and groves: A comparison of the potential impact of the primary street network scenarios on specimen trees and groves. The primary street network for RT 2.0 West shown on Figure 5 was designed to as much as possible avoid impacts on specimen trees and groves. Scenarios were rated based on the number of specimen trees or groves they impacted. • Impervious surface: Area of impervious surface = Sum (feet of impervious surface per cross-section segment x length of street segment). This is calculated for two different primary street cross-section options in Table D1 in Appendix D. Scenarios were evaluated as follows: • The scenario with the lowest impervious surface area was rated as the best scenario. • Scenarios within 25% of the best performing scenario were considered to have similar impacts. Page 136 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN • Scenarios were considered to have a medium impact if their impervious surface area was 25%to 75% higher than the best performing scenario. • Scenarios were considered to have a high impact if their impervious surface area was more than 75% higher than the best performing scenario. • Impacts to wetlands and areas with environmental designations: The primary street network for RT 2.0 WEST shown on Figure 5 was designed to minimize impacts to wetlands identified as significant by the project team. Scenarios were evaluated based on a qualitative assessment of their potential impact. Results Table 19 shows that the least impact on natural resources would come from Scenario 1. The shorter length of this scenario results in less impervious surface and fewer (two) stream crossings. All scenarios are likely to have some impact to the tree grove located in the southeast corner of the Scholls Ferry Road & Mountainside Way intersection. Scenarios 2 and 3 have increased natural resource impacts related to an additional stream crossing and increased impervious surface (approximately 60% more impervious surface than Scenario 1).Scenario 4 has an even more significant impact with a fourth stream crossing and the most impervious surface (approximately 120% more impervious surface than Scenario 1). Infrastructure costs will be significantly more under these scenarios to construct additional stream crossings and treat runoff from increased impervious surface. All scenarios are likely to have some impact to the tree grove located in the southeast corner of the Scholls Ferry Road & Mountainside Way intersection. Scenarios 1 and 3 could have some additional impacts on this tree grove depending on the size of the required design to accommodate higher turning movements at this intersection. The crossing of the north-south creek parallel to Vandermost Road is near an existing known beaver dam (see Figure 10). While the habitat quality and value of this area is unknown, it is possible that a Tile Flat Road crossing at this location could impact riparian habitat, wetlands, and hydrology modified by the beaver dam. Visits to the site showed significant pond-like features around the creek bed, further south than the wetlands previously mapped in the concept plan. Depending on detailed wetland delineation during design, a street crossing at this location (included as part of Scenarios 2 and 4) could trigger time and cost-intensive state and federal permitting impacts. Additionally, the steep slopes in this area and the potential need to set back footings from the wetland could increase structural cost of a bridge at this location. Page 137 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN E,.r1 ,\r7 K ' ;am 0!,r tr 2 1( 4t.!, _,Eii , 1, .„. r Sl 4i 1: ,`f I. r ip,1 ) 41 , . e obr I 'M t -,' ,0,(1k . : ‘'.. kill . ,., ,,-. , . f ,-` _ FIGURE 10: LOCATION AND PHOTOGRAPH OF EXISTING KNOWN BEAVER DAM. Evaluation Natural resource impacts were evaluated based on the results above and summarized in Table 19 Scenario 1 has the least impact on natural resources. Scenarios 2 and 4 have some impacts given the need for additional stream crossings, increased impervious surface, and potential wetlands impacts from the Tile Flat Road extension under Scenario 2. Scenario 4 was considered to have a significant impact to natural resources given the need for two additional stream crossings, a more than doubling of impervious surface, and potential wetlands impacts from the Tile Flat Road extension. TABLE 19: EVALUATION OF NATURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 I SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 Stream Crossings 2 3 3 Ideal condition - no stream Fewest stream One additional One additional crossings crossings stream crossing stream crossing compared to compared to + Scenario I Scenario I Specimen Trees and Groves 1* 1 1" 1 Ideal condition - no impact Potentially Potential impact Potentially Potential impact to specimen trees and greater impact to tree grove at greater impact to to tree grove at groves tree grove at Scholls Ferry & tree grove at Scholls Ferry & Scholls Ferry Mountainside Scholls Ferry & Mountainside Mountainside Way Mountainside Way Way dependin j Way depending or intxn de ' on intxn. design Impervious Surface 535,400 sq.ft. 532,200 sq.ft, 735,000 sq.ft. (+61%) (+60%) (+121%) Page 138 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 Ideal condition - Increase in Increase in Significant impervious surface limited impervious impervious increase in to primary development surface to extend surface to extend impervious needs Tile Flat Road Mountainside surface to extend Way Tile Flat Road Wetland Impacts Potential impact Potential impact depending on depending on Ideal condition - no wetland wetland impacts to wetlands designation near designation near Vandermost Vandermost Overall Performance for Fewest stream Additional Additional Two additional Natural Resource Impacts crossings, some stream stream stream impact to trees, crossing, some crossing, some crossings, some Ideal condition - minimal lowest impact to trees, impact to trees, impact to trees, impact to streams, trees, impervious potential increased potential wetlands, and impervious surface wetlands impervious wetlands surface impact, surface impact, highest increased impervious impervious surface surface 'Based on pavement surface from unidirectiona bike lanes option in Table Dl in Appendix D 'Potential for additional impact if an increased intersect on footprint is required at Scholls Ferry Road&Mountainside Way C. Livability Impacts of Regional Vehicle Trips This metric considers the type of trips (e.g., local versus regional) along the primary collector streets and compares the number of trips going through the River Terrace 2.0 development that are attributable to regional (cut-through)trips. Methodology The forecasted local and regional motor vehicle traffic volumes were estimated along roadway segments for 2040 using Washington County's version of the Metro Regional Transportation Demand Model. The volumes were based on the PM peak hour and factored up by 10 to represent 2040 ADT.The volumes include the vehicle trips that start and end outside of the River Terrace 2.0 area but travel along the primary collector street network in the River Terrace 2.0 West subarea (i.e.,Tile Flat Road, Mountainside Road, or Sabrina Avenue). Results & Evaluation Table 20 shows the volume of expected cut-through traffic on Mountainside Way and the relative increase compared to the best performing scenario. Scenarios were evaluated as follows: • Scenario 1 has some cut-through traffic, but a relatively minor amount compared to typical collector volume ranges and was scored as having a small impact. • Given cut-through volumes for the best performing scenario (Scenario 1) are low, scenarios were considered to have a medium impact if their cut-through traffic was 2-to 5-times that of the best performing scenario. Scenario 3 will see an increase in cut-through traffic from the extension of Mountainside Way to Perth Road. Page 139 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN • Scenarios were considered to have a significant impact if their cut-through traffic was 5-to 10-times that of the best performing scenario. Scenarios were considered to have a very significant impact if their cut- through traffic was more than 10-times that of the best performing scenario. Scenario 2 will see a considerable increase in cut-through traffic from extending Tile Flat Road. Scenario 4 will see an even higher increase from extending both Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way. TABLE 20: TYPE OF TRAVEL ON THE PRIMARY STREET NETWORK CUT-THROUGH VEHICLE TRIPS (2040 ADT)* SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 Mountainside Way, south of 800 vpd Tile Flat Road Extension 200 vpd (+300%) Ideal definition - cut- Lowest cut- Some increase in through traffic is minimized through traffic cut-through (zero vpd) and a small traffic compared proportion of to Scenario 1 street volume ; and relatively •rt� small portion of street volume *A cut-through tr p is defined as one that starts and ends outside of the River Terrace 2.0 area,but travels along Tile Flat Road,Mountainside Way,or Sabrina Avenue and through the River Terrace 2.0 area.The total for all scenarios is based on the segment of Mountainside Way,south of the Tile Flat Road intersection Page 140 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN 4. DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY The following section provides performance metrics that compare potential impacts on the development feasibility of River Terrace 2.0 between the primary street network scenarios. A. Support to Commercial Areas This metric compares how well the primary street network scenarios align travel by multiple modes to connect with the planned commercial areas shown on Figure 11. SW Scholls Ferry Rd Scholls Ferry Road & Mountainside Way (SFMW) SW TiM Flat Rd SW i 4 Clemen�ne5t [WEST] cr TNSWJeaulseRd o _ 101 b 1 N > 1m v Roy Rogers Road & �3 SW Bull Mtn Rd Bull Mountain Road (RRBM) 3: C 0 0 5 2 v SW Woodhue 5t ..I SW Lasich Ln • — — SW Beef Bend Rd FIGURE 11: PLANNED COMMERCIAL AREAS IN RIVER TERRACE 2.0 WEST RELATIVE TO KEY STREET SEGMENTS. Page 141 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Methodology The analysis considers two performance measures for each of the commercial areas: • The ADT passing the two commercial areas in RT 2.0 West (shown on Figure 6 through Figure 9) both on the arterial street network and the collector street network. • Walkshed analysis: GIS analysis to calculate the percentage of residential development in RT 2.0 West that is within a %2-mile and 1-mile walk of the two commercial areas (i.e., a 10- and 20-minute walk). Note that the analysis only includes the primary street network.The local street network may increase the percentage of development within each walking catchment. However, it is expected that the relative increase would be the same across scenarios. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 21. 110 Results & Evaluation An analysis by Johnson Economics found that the Scholls Ferry & Mountainside Way(SFMW) commercial area is more likely to support major commerce, while the Roy Rogers & Bull Mountain (RRBM) commercial area is more appropriate for smaller scale walkable mixed-use development.This means that the SFMW area is more dependent on vehicle access and traffic exposure to succeed. Since the RRBM commercial area is intended as a smaller commercial node primarily serving the adjacent development, walk/bike access may be more important to its success. These priorities have been considered in the evaluation. Table 21 shows that for the SFMW commercial area, Scenario 3 provides the most traffic exposure closely followed by Scenario 1 (2% less than Scenario 3). Scenarios 2 and 4, because of the traffic drawn to the Tile Flat Road extension, see 17% and 20% less pass-by traffic at this commercial area compared to Scenario 3. The results of the walkshed analysis included in Table 11 (see metric 2C) show that with the extension of Tile Flat Road (Scenario 2), Mountainside Way(Scenario 3), or both (Scenario 4), there is an incremental increase in the amount of residential development that can access the SFMW commercial areas within a 1-mile walkshed of the SFMW commercial area—up to a 15% increase. It's important to note that walkshed modeling is an inexact science at this scale and for transportation networks that do not yet exist, and so it's likely that any differences between the scenarios are marginal at best. Therefore, while the impacts are somewhat off-setting between the accessibility and visibility by different modes, Scenario 3 best balances multimodal accessibility with focusing vehicle traffic through the planned SFWM commercial area. For the RRBM commercial area, Scenario 2 provides the most traffic exposure because of the additional traffic drawn to the Tile Flat Road extension that is then routed along Bull Mountain Road past this commercial area. Scenario 1 (which does not have the extension of Tile Flat Road) sees approximately 7% less pass-by traffic compared to Scenario 2. Scenarios 3 and 4 that extend Mountainside Way to Perth Road see 14% and 10% less pass-by traffic compared to Scenario 2. Page 142 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 21: EVALUATION OF SUPPORT TO COMMERCIAL AREAS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD & MOUNTAINSIDE WAY COMMERCIAL AREA Pass-by traffic(ADT) - 24,300 vpd 23,400 vpd (-17%) (-20%) Ideal definition - Significantly less nass- $igni`icantly less maximize traffic by traffic compared to] pass-by traffic passing by commercial Scenario 3 compared to areas Scenario 3 Walkshed Analysis 70% 80% 80% Ideal condition - 15% less 5% less coverage 5% less highest coverage coverage compared to Scenario coverage ' percentage compared to 4 compared to Scenario 4 Scenario 4 Overall Performance High pass-by Significantly less pass- Significantly less traffic but lower by traffic and good pass-by traffic and Ideal condition - walkshed walkshed coverage additional walkshed maximize pass-by traffic coverage coverage with good walkability ROY ROGERS ROAD & BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD COMMERCIAL AREA Pass-by traffic (ADT) 38,900 vpd 36,300 vpd 37,700 vpd (-7%) (-14%) (-10%) Ideal definition - Somewhat less Significantly less Significantly less maximize traffic pass-by traffic pass-by traffic pass-by traffic passing by commercial compared to compared to compared to areas Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Walkshed Analysis 60% 80% 75% Ideal condition - 30% less 10% less coverage 15% less highest coverage coverage compared to Scenario coverage percentage compared to 4 compared to Scena-io 4 Scenario 4 Overall Performance High pass-by Highest pass-by traffic Significantly less - traffic but lower and good walkshed pass-by traffic Ideal condition - walkshed coverage and reduced maximize pass-by traffic coverage walkshed with good walkability coverage COMBINED IMPACT TO COMMERCIAL AREAS Ideal definition - Provides highest Provides highest pass- Provides best Provides best maximize traffic overall pass-by by traffic for RRBM performance for performance for passing by and traffic but lower and good walkshed SFMW but lower RRBM but lower walkshed coverage for walkshed coverage pass-by traffic pass-by traffic for commercial areas coverage for RRBM SFMW Page 143 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN The results of the walkshed analysis included in Table 11 (see metric 2C) show that with the extension of Tile Flat Road (Scenario 2), Mountainside Way (Scenario 3), or both (Scenario 4), there is an incremental increase in the amount of residential development that can access the RRBM commercial areas within a 1-mile walkshed of the RRBM commercial area—up to a 30% increase. Therefore, while the impacts are somewhat off-setting between the accessibility and visibility by different modes, Scenario 4 best balances multimodal accessibility increasing the walkshed coverage for the planned RRBM commercial area. It is noted that overall, Scenario 1 has the highest overall pass-by traffic exposure for the two commercial areas combined, but the lowest walkshed coverage. Scenario 4 has the lowest combined pass-by traffic exposure but the highest walkshed coverage. Scenarios 2 and 4 fall somewhere in between on both metrics. Regardless of the scenario, the active transportation network should be planned to access and support the commercial areas. A high level of design is needed to separate pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles and to create inviting pedestrian spaces and opportunities for outside activities, seating, and sidewalk cafes. Regardless of the scenario, the most likely future transit route through the neighborhood will be along Mountainside Way and Bull Mountain Road. This will maximize transit access to these commercial areas and increase their role as mobility hubs for the neighborhood. B. Land Use and Development Feasibility This metric compares the potential impacts to developable acreage, development intensity, or development form resulting from the different primary street network scenarios. Methodology The analysis includes a quantitative assessment of the potential development impacts between scenarios focusing on development yield, development form,cost, and feasibility. Results Page 144 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Table 22 summarizes the potential impacts on development from the different primary street network scenarios.The primary street network identified in Scenario 1 is what is required for development to occur. It has the fewest stream crossings and the lowest traffic volumes meaning that the required design of roadways and intersections will minimize cost and development form impacts. Page 145 RIVER 9 Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 22: POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL A • This is the basic primary street network needed for development. • The area on Vandermost Road would be disconnected from the rest of the network which may further limit its development potential. • This scenario has the fewest stream crossings and the lowest traffic volumes reducing the size of internal streets and intersections. This scenario minimizes impacts on development cost and form. 8 • Extending Tile Flat Road is not essential to developing RT 2.0 but would better connect development on Vandermost Road to the rest of RT 2.0 West. • Extending Tile Flat Road will require additional dedication for right-of-way and intersection design and may require dedication for additional property setbacks to account for increases in traffic volume. This could have a minor impact on potential development yield. • Development on Vandermost Road is expected to be low intensity and would not (alone) justify the cost to extend Tile Flat Road and construct an additional stream crossing. • Right-of-way will need to be reserved for the Tile Flat Road extension until it is constructed. Its form will need to be determined for interim phases of development. C • The area on Vandermost Road would be disconnected from the rest of the network which may limit its development potential. • Extending Mountainside Way is not essential to developing RT 2.0 and part of the extension is outside the urban growth boundary and is not currently developable. • Extending Mountainside Way and constructing an additional stream crossing will add significant cost to the development for little or no additional development yield. • Extending Mountainside Way will require addit onal dedication for right-of-way and intersection design and may require dedication for additional property setbacks to account for increases In traffic volume. This could have a minor impact on cost and potential development yield. • Right-of-way will need to be reserved for the Mountainside Way extension until it is constructed. Its form will need to be determined for interim phases of development. D • Extending Tile Flat Road is not essential to developing RT 2.0 but would better connect development on Vandermost Road to the rest of RT 2.0 West. • Development on Vandermost Road is expected to be low intensity and would not (alone) justify the cost to extend Tile Flat Road and construct an additional stream crossing. • Extending Mountainside Way is not essential to developing RT 2.0 and part of the extension is outside the urban growth boundary and is not currently developable. • Extending Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way and constructing two additional stream crossings wi I add significant cost to the development for little or no additional development yield. • Extending Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way will require additional dedication for right-of-way and intersection design and may require dedication for additional property setbacks to account for increases in traffic volume. This could have a moderate impact on potential development yield. • Right-of-way will need to be reserved for the Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way extensions until they are constructed. Their form will need to be determined for interim phases of development. Page 146 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN The area of RT 2.0 along Vandermost Road is constrained by existing natural resources and is only expected to support lower intensity residential and smaller development parcels. The land use approach proposed in the Housing Plan designates this land for the lowest density development, but the final zoning map and regulations could lower this density even further in response to the environmental constraints and to address volume concerns at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road &Vandermost Road. Without an extension of Tile Flat Road, this area would depend on the use of the arterial street network to connect to the rest of RT 2.0 which may further limit its development potential and sense of connection to the rest of RT 2.0. The Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way extensions are not required to make the RT 2.0 development feasible. The additional creek crossings needed for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 in the portion within the River Terrace 2.0 area would add significant costs that would need to be factored into the SDC project list, potentially increasing housing costs. The portions of Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 outside the Urban Growth Boundary would not be built by development and would need to be funded through a Capital Improvement Project, likely from MSTIP or other regional sources. This would potentially have implications for the funding strategy and timing relative to development, but the greater impact is likely on the limited regional funds available for construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure in an increasingly constrained fiscal environment. In Scenarios 2, 3, and 4, some amount of right-of-way would need to be reserved for the Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way extensions. This will leave undeveloped corridors, and the development design will need to determine the form of these corridors in the interim (e.g., closed to the public, open as trail corridors, interim bike/ped bridges at stream crossing locations, etc.). Despite a potentially long-time horizon to complete the road extensions, having a long-term plan for a future road could inhibit construction of bike/ped connections that could better serve the area in the near-term. Evaluation Scenario 1 allows development to be phased until a critical mass of development triggers the need for internal stream crossings. It has the least amount of dedication required but some small impacts on the development potential on Vandermost Road. Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 bring forward infrastructure costs—particularly the bridge crossings— in order to meet regional traffic needs.These scenarios also require additional dedication and right- of-way to be preserved until these extensions can be constructed in the future. Page 147 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 23: EVALUATION OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 Funding and Timing •o en `al •otential implications on implications on ' Ideal definition - II funding strategy funding strategy costs contained to and timing and timing those supported by development Right-of-Way Needs Additional Additional Additional " dedication for ROW dedication for ROW dedication for ROW Ideal definition - and setbacks and setbacks and setbacks ROW and dedications limited to what is needed to support RT 2.0 development Impacts on Least dedication Additional Additional Additional Development Yield may be offset by dedication would dedication and dedication would limited access have some but not limited access have some but not Ideal definition - impacting significant impact could impact significant impact least impact to development scale on yield development scale on yield development yield on Vandermost on Vandermost Overall Higher costs may Higher costs may Highest costs Performance for have implications have implications may have Land Use and on funding on funding significant Development strategy. Some strategy. Some implications on additional additional funding strategy. Ideal definition -- dedication needs dedication needs Some additional least impact to and potential dedication needs development with impacts on costs contained to development those supported by yield on development Vandermost C. Order-of-Magnitude Infrastructure Costs and Funding Implications This metric compares order-of-magnitude costs for full multimodal network buildout and the implications for project funding. Methodology The analysis applied unit costs to the anticipated cross-sections, stream crossings, and intersections forms to develop a cost estimate for each scenario. A qualitative assessment was also made on the potential funding implications for each scenario based on expected project delivery. Page 148 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 24: STREET NETWORK QUANTITY ASSUMPTIONS CATEGORY ASSUMPTIONS Total Length of new Collector Roadways (includes the total length Scenario 1: 1.06 miles of Tile Flat Road and/or Mountainside Way under each scenario) Scenario 2: 1.69 miles Scenario 3: 1.59 miles Scenario 4: 2.22 miles # of Stream Crossings Scenario 1: 2 Scenario 2 and 3: 3 Scenario 4: 4 # of Roundabouts Scenario 1: 0 Scenario 2 and 3: 1 Scenario 4: 2 # of new Approaches at Signalized Intersection Scenario 1: 2 Scenario 2 and 3: 3 Scenario 4: 4 Results Estimated infrastructure costs and cost considerations are included in Table 25. Scenario 1 includes less new roadway and only two stream crossings and is the lowest cost scenario. Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 increase the length of roadway, number of intersections and approaches, and require additional stream crossing(s) to extend Tile Flat Road and/or Mountainside Way respectively. Scenarios 2 and 3 are almost double the cost of Scenario 1. Scenario 4 requires the most new roadway, intersections, intersection approaches, and a total of four stream crossings and is approximately 180%more expensive than Scenario 1. In addition, the ability for private development to construct the roadways with cost-sharing through System Development Charge (SDC) and/or Transportation Development Tax (TDT) credits varies for segments within RT 2.0 compared to those that extend outside the UGB. Segments that cannot be built by private development must be built as a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project and funded in full through SDCs, TDT, and/or other public sources, increasing the need for constrained transportation system construction and maintenance funds. In addition, because these segments are serving a regional purpose, it is likely not appropriate to impose their cost on development in RT 2 0, meaning that their construction would require contributions from county- or city-wide sources. The city has limited funds available for the construction and maintenance of facilities already listed in its Transportation System Plan, and the new prioritization framework and constrained project list requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule in the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities updates means that the city has less dollars available in total for vehicle-centered projects, further impacting the ability to maintain and improve existing facilities. Page 149 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 25: ESTIMATED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS SCENARIO ROADWAY COSTS COST CONSIDERATIONS A $18,500,000 • All roadway segments are within RT 2.0 and may be able to be built by development (with cost-sharing through SDC and/or TDT credits). 1 B $37,500,000 • Extending Tile Flat Road results in a 103% increase in cost for additional and enhanced right-of-way and design and an additional stream crossing. • Tile Flat Road extension outside the UGB would likely require a CIP project and contributions from county- or city-wide funding sources. C $33,000,000 • Extending Mountainside Way results in a 78% increase in cost for additional and enhanced right-of-way and design and an additional stream crossing. • Mountainside Way extension outside the UGB would likely require a CIP project and contributions from county- or city- wide funding sources. D $52,000,000 • Extending Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way results in a 181% increase in cost for additional and enhanced right-of- way and design and two additional stream crossings. • Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way extensions outside the UGB would likely require CIP projects and contributions from county- or city-wide funding sources. Evaluation Table 26 summarizes the evaluation of cost and funding implications. Scenario 1 has the lowest transportation infrastructure cost.Scenarios 2, 3,and 4 have higher or much higher costs and may also require CIP projects and contributions from county-or city-wide funding sources. Page 150 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 26: EVALUATION OF COST AND FUNDING IMPLICATIONS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 T SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 Order-of-Magnitude Cost $37.5 million $33 million ill[- Ideal definition - lowest cost (+103%) (+78%) Need for CIP project and/or Yes Yes Yes contributions from county- or city-wide funding sources Ideal definition - costs contained to those supported by development Overall Performance for Approximately Higher cost Appro• ching Cost and Funding double the cost compared to triple the cos of Scenario 1 Scenario 1 and of Scenario 1 Ideal definition - lower costs and may need may need CIP, I and may nee contained to those supported CIP, County, or County, or City I CIP, County, o by development City funding funding I City funding sources sources sources D. Timing, Phasing, and Project Cost This metric looks at the potential timing for constructing different street segments and stream crossings and the implications on development phasing and infrastructure project delivery (e.g., public vs. private). It also considers the implications of future proofing the construction of streets to a higher standard in advance of and with the unknown of a Tile Flat Road extension. Methodology The analysis considered: • Elements of the primary street network that may need to be accelerated to support a regional traffic function in advance of their development need. • Additional elements of the primary street network scenarios that are beyond the needs of the RT 2.0 development. Results Scenario 1 allows for development in RT 2.0 West to occur in four independent phases: • The area accessed by extending Bull Mountain Road west of Roy Rogers Road. • The area accessed by extending Jean Louise Drive west of Roy Rogers Road. • The area accessed by extending Mountainside Way south of Scholls Ferry Road. • The area accessed along Vandermost Road. Page 151 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN These areas could develop independently with primary and secondary connections to the arterial street network and over time be connected internally with the construction of the stream crossings north and south of Jean Louise Drive once a critical mass of development triggers the need for internal circulation. Extending Tile Flat Road and/or Mountainside Way(Scenarios 2, 3, and 4) may bring forward the need to construct the primary street network and these two primary stream crossings before development can support them and will require one or two additional stream crossings that are not required for development of RT 2.0 West. This raises the question of who funds the accelerated need for this infrastructure and the additional stream crossing(s) outside of the RT 2.0 West development schedule. TABLE 27: TIMING, PHASING, AND PRO3ECT COST IMPACTS SCENARIO IMPACTS A • Elements of the primary street network could be constructed in each sub-area to support development until a critical mass of development triggers the need for the 2 primary stream crossings to complete internal circulation. • Regional traffic need may accelerate construction costs for the primary street network and primary stream crossings. • No additional right-of-way needs to be preserved along the Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way extensions beyond that needed for local street circulation. B • Regional traffic need may accelerate construction costs for the primary street network and primary stream crossings. • Extending Tile Flat Road may bring forward the need to construct the primary street network and the 2 primary stream crossings before development can support them. This scenario also requires an additional stream crossing that is not needed as part of the base development schedule included in Scenario 1. • Right-of-way will need to be preserved sufficient for a collector street to be built along the Tile Flat Road alignment. This will require an easement or road stub to be maintained until this connection is funded. C • Regional traffic need may accelerate construction costs for the primary street network and primary stream crossings. • Extending Mountainside Way may bring forward the need to construct the primary street network and the 2 primary stream crossings before development can support them. This scenario also requires an additional stream crossing that is not needed as part of the base development schedule included in Scenario 1. • Right-of-way will need to be preserved sufficient for a collector street to be built along the Mountainside Way Extension alignment. This will require an easement or road stub to be maintained until this connection is funded. D • Regional traffic need may accelerate construction costs for the primary street network and primary stream crossings. • Extending Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way may bring forward the need to construct the primary street network and the 2 primary stream crossings before development can support them. This scenario also requires 2 additional stream crossings that are not needed as part of the based development schedule included in Scenario 1. • Right-of-way will need to be preserved sufficient for collector streets to be built along the Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way Extension alignments. This will require easements or road stubs to be maintained until this connection is funded. Page 152 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Evaluation Scenario 1 allows development to be phased until a critical mass of development triggers the need for internal stream crossings. Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 bring forward the need for these costs to meet regional traffic needs. They will also require right-of-way to be preserved until these extensions can be constructed in the future. TABLE 28: EVALUATION OF TIMING, PHASING, AND PROJECT COST IMPACTS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 Timing, Phasing, and Additional Additional wo a itio a ' Project Cost Impacts stream stream stream crossing may crossing may crossings may Ideal definition - development bring forward bring forward bring forward can be phased to delay costs costs costs infrastructure costs E. Fire, Life, and Safety This metric compares the fire, life,and safety needs for each scenario including access, connectivity, response time, and development impacts (e.g.,turnaround and circulation, building needs, etc.). Methodology The analysis includes a qualitative assessment of: • Connectivity of the street network and if development areas have more than one access and can be served by emergency routes from multiple directions. • Design and development considerations, e.g., cross-section and turnaround needs for emergency vehicles, building needs, etc. • Potential impact to emergency response times due to increased internal traffic volumes. These considerations are summarized in Table 29. Results Table 29 shows that Scenario 1 provides multiple accesses to most of the RT 2.0 West development and emergency response from multiple directions. Without the extension of Tile Flat Road, development on Vandermost Road would have a single access Street design in that area will need to consider circulation and/or turnaround needs for emergency vehicles. Scenario 3 would be similar. Development potential along Vandermost Road is limited and will likely be below the 30 one-and two-family dwelling units where a second access is required by the Oregon Fire Code. These dwellings will need to be equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system. Given the low development potential, this impact is not considered significant. However, it does provide an additional emergency access route to the rest of RT 2.0 West via the extension of Mountainside Way to Perth Road. Page 153 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 29: FIRE, LIFE, SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS SCENAR ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY DESIGN AND IO DEVELOPMENT A • Multiple accesses and emergency response is possible from • Street design will need multiple directions for the majority of RT 2.0 West. to consider circulation Interim right-in/right-out access may be needed as secondary or turnaround for • access to the arterial network to support phased development emergency vehicles on before internal connections / stream crossings are built. Vandermost Road. • • Development on Vandermost Road will be served by a single Street design features access and limited to 30 one- or two-family dwellings fitted (e.g., medians, protected bikeways, with an approved automatic sprinkler system. etc.) to be coordinated • This scenario has the lowest internal traffic volumes that may with Tualatin Fire & help reduce response time. Rescue. K • Multiple accesses and emergency response is possible from • Street design features multiple directions for all of RT 2.0 West - including an (e.g., medians, additional emergency response route to the northwest with the protected bikeways, extension of Tile Flat Road. etc.) to be coordinated Interim right-in/right-out access may be needed as secondary with Tualatin Fire & • access to the arterial network to support phased development Rescue. before internal connections / stream crossings are built, • Development on Vandermost Road will be connected to the rest of RT 2.0 providing secondary access for emergency response. • Increased internal traffic volumes may increase response time. C • Multiple accesses and emergency response is possible from • Street design will need multiple directions for the majority of RT 2.0 West - including to consider circulation an additional emergency response route to the south with the or turnaround for extension of Mountainside Way. emergency vehicles on • Interim right-in/right-out access may be needed as secondary Vandermost Road, access to the arterial network to support phased development • Street design features before internal connections / stream crossings are built. (e.g., medians, • Development on Vandermost Road will be served by a single protected bikeways, access and limited to 30 one- or two-family dwellings fitted etc.) to be coordinated with an approved automatic sprinkler system. with Tualatin Fire & Rescue. I • Some increase in internal traffic volumes may increase response time. D • Multiple accesses and emergency response is possible from • Street design features multiple directions for all of RT 2.0 West including additional (e.g., medians, emergency response route to the northwest and south with protected bikeways, the extensions of Tile Flat Road and Mountainside Way. etc.) to be coordinated Interim right-in/right-out access may be needed as secondary with Tualatin Fire & • access to the arterial network to support phased development Rescue. before internal connections / stream crossings are built. • Development on Vandermost Road will be connected to the rest of RT 2.0 providing secondary access for emergency response. • Increased internal traffic volumes may increase response time. Page 154 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Scenarios 2 and 4 would provide additional access via the Tile Flat Road extension and allow emergency response from the northwest.These scenarios also provide a second emergency access to any development on Vandermost Road. Scenarios 3 and 4 would provide an additional emergency response route from the south with the extension of Mountainside Way to the Roy Rogers Road & Perth Road intersection. All scenarios will need to consider fire and emergency access during the phased buildout of the development. If development occurs before the stream crossings are constructed, secondary access points will be needed with interim right-in/right-out access to the arterial network. As the number of access points increases so does traffic volume internal to the development, which could offset some response time savings. Street design features such as medians, protected bike lanes, and other features that reduce street widths will need to be considered in relation to the Fire Code and in consultation with Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue. Evaluation Table 30 shows that all scenarios address fire, life, and safety needs. Although Scenarios 1 and 3 do not include the Tile Flat Road extension, the resulting single access to development on Vandermost Road is not considered significant given that development potential in that area is likely less than the threshold needed for a secondary access and can be addressed with emergency vehicle circulation or turnaround and automatic sprinkler systems. While having additional emergency access is always helpful, Scenarios 1 and 3 provide emergency response routes from multiple directions and via multiple access points and as such meet fire, life, and safety needs. There is some potential for increased response under Scenarios 2 and 4, however,these increases are not expected to be significant. TABLE 30: EVALUATION OF FIRE, LIFE, AND SAFETY IMPACTS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 Multiple Access Points Multiple access Multiple access Available points for points for majority of RT majority of RT Ideal definition - all areas of 2.0 West but 2.0 West but development have multiple single access single access access points may limit may limit development on development on Vandermost^ Vandermost^ Primary Directions for i 3 3 Emergency Response Ideal definition - more directions may reduce response times Potential for Response Time Lowest traffic Higher traffic Slightly higher Delay due to Traffic volumes will volumes on traffic volumes result in lowest Mountainsice on Mountainside iF=ir• , I Ideal definition - no delay to transit delays Way will increase Way but similar I emergency response times transit delay to Scenario 1 Page 155 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 compared to`.q Scenario I Overall Performance Meets Meets fire, life, Meets fire, life, Meets fire, life, Meets fire, life, Fire, Life, and Safety Needs safety needs safety needs safety needs safety needs with some with multiple with some with multiple Ideal definition — meets fire, impacts on accesses and impacts on accesses and life, safety with minimal development response development response impact on development yield on Vandermost directions. on Vandermost directions. and response times Higher traffic Higher traffic volumes may volumes may impact impact emergency emergency response time 1 response time .Does not consider potential development on Vandermost Road,which is considered separately. A This will limit development to under 30 one-and two-family dwellings that will need to be fitted with an approved automatic sprinkler system.It will also require circulation or turnaround area for emergency vehicles.These requirements meet the Fire Code and are not considered significant. Page 156 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN 5. EQUITY The following provides an analysis of potential equity impacts across the primary street network scenarios. A. Equitable Benefits This metric compares who benefits and who is impacted under each of the network scenarios. The analysis compares impacts to potential residents of RT 2.0. Methodology Qualitative analysis of potential impacts to equity communities as mapped on the Oregon Social Equity Web App. It is difficult to measure the equitable distribution of impacts given the demographics of people that might move to RT 2.0 are unknown. However,the development is intended to include a mix of housing types available to a variety of income levels that could attract populations that face disparity in their access to health, transportation, education, housing, and wealth. As a comparison, although not fully built out, RT 1.0 between Scholls Ferry Road and Bull Mountain Road is designated as "low-medium disparity"when compared to state averages with respect to age, ability, income, language, and race/ethnicity (which are identified as predictors of disparity). If similar demographics are attracted to RT 2.0,then it will be important to minimize negative impacts from emissions and noise exposure, increased crash risk, reduced access to convenient and low-cost transportation, reduced access to parks, open space, and local destinations, housing affordability, and climate resilience in order to reduce the potential for these factors to increase disparities in access to health, transportation, education, housing, and wealth. Results & Evaluation Overall, Scenario 1 would minimize potential impacts to more vulnerable future residents by minimizing the amount of traffic on the internal street network (reducing exposure to emissions, noise, and crash risk) and providing comfortable and low-cost transportation options that can access local parks, commercial areas, schools, etc. Scenario 1 also has the lowest infrastructure cost which would bring down overall development costs and may reduce the cost of housing for future residents. With the fewest stream crossings and roadway footprint of the scenarios,Scenario 1 would preserve the greatest amount of natural resources in the project area. This contributes to improved climate resilience outcomes for future residents of RT 2.0 West such as increased carbon sequestration and better adaptation to climate change impacts like drier summers, hotter temperatures, and more intense rainfall events. Scenario 3 that extends Mountainside Way to Perth Road would provide a benefit to residents in terms of increasing access to destinations in parts of RT 1.0, RT 2.0, and Kingston Terrace. However, it would result in higher traffic volumes on the internal street network, increasing exposure to crash risk, noise, and emissions for future residents of RT 2.0 West.This could also increase travel time for future transit service, a critical service for lower-income individuals, youth, and people with mobility limitations to reach key destinations within RT 2.0 and the surrounding region. Page 157 Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios RIVER TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 31: EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON DISPARITY PM PEAK HOUR VMT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 Emissions and Noise Exposure Higher traffic Slight increase in Highest traffic volumes than traffic volumes volumes compared Ideal definition - lowest a Scenario 1 compared to to Scenario 1 exposure Scenario 1 Crash Risk Lowest VRU VRU crash VRU crash '•'t7:11-1 ;t13r'3 crash exposure exposure exposure ,14,1Ir.-1 Ideal definition - lowest crash somewhat higher somewhat higher _ 47,A 3C1r1%J0 exposure than Scenario 1 than Scenario 1 ;•_ . T �ywT-,7 Access to Convenient and Low- Good access to Good access to I Potential for Cost Transportation transit and a transit and a increased transit well-connected well-connected :;! _=r' _ routes and Ideal definition - access to active active 1.•,-1, ; ' additional active transit and well-connected transportation transportation ., = r; : ?.t_.,i ,', transportation active transportation network. network. r LP' D - connections. Lowest transit Increased transit _ : + �. ^ < Highest transit delays delay delays Access to Parks, Open Space, Good access to Good access to and Local Destinations parks, open parks, open space, and local space, and local • Ideal definition - well- destinations destinations , • connected access to these destinations Housing Affordability Higher Higher i,itk,zi, - infrastructure infrastructure a, 'ti' 4.e_t trn14ta;�-< Ideal definition - lowest costs compared costs compared to f.J' "I„'.1 infrastructure costs resulting in to Scenario 1 Scenario 1 may .0.1.T=I Si-j !" lower housing prices may decrease decrease housing t10,>'j'-'ictlit%1 housing affordability i17i. 0:11(1 affordability Natural Resource Impacts and Fewest stream Additional Additional stream Two additronal Climate Resilience crossings, some stream crossing, crossing, some stream crossings, impact to trees, some impact to impact to trees, some in-pact to Ideal definition - minimal lowest trees, potential increased trees, potential impact to streams, trees, impervious wetlands impact, impervious wetlands impact, wetlands, and impervious surface increased surface highest impervious surface impervious surface surface Overall Impacts on Lowest Higher Higher exposure Highest Populations Facing Disparity exposure to exposure to to emissions, exposure to emissions, emissions, noise, and crash emissions, noise, Ideal definition - no impacts to noise, and noise, and risk, impacts to and crash risk; vulnerable populations crash risk but crash risk, housing impacts to some impacts impacts to affordability housing from climate housing and climate affordability and resilience affordability resilience. climate and climate Increased resilience. 1 resilience connectivity Increased connectivity Page 158 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Scenarios 2 and 4 that extend Tile Flat Road would increase vehicular access to the arterial street network, particularly to regional destinations northwest of RT 2.0. However, it would result in higher traffic volumes on the internal street network increasing exposure to crash risk, noise, and emissions for future residents of RT 2.0 West.This could also increase travel time for future transit service. Increased development costs associated with these two scenarios may have a negative impact on housing affordability in RT 2.0, and the significant added impact to natural resources is expected to lessen climate resilience outcomes for future residents. Page 154 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN APPENDICES Appendix A Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) Design Requirements TABLE Al. SEGMENT BITS 1 DESIGN CRITERIA FACILITY DESIGN CRITERIA Shared Use Path Assuming minimum standards per 2024 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (Table 6-3). Assuming a peak hour volume on the shared use path between 300 to 500 bph: • Practical minimum width: 11' (constrained scenarios only). • Recommended lower limit: 12', • Recommended upper limit: 15'. • Recommended practical maximum is 16'. Separated Bike Lanes Assuming minimum standards per 2024 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Facility type: One-Way Separated Bike Lanes Between Sloped Curb, at Sidewalk Level, or Adjacent to Curb with Gutter widths (bike lane only, excluding curb widths): • 5.5'-7.5' width (< 150 peak hour directional bicyclist volume). • 7.5'-9' width (150-750 peak hour directional bicyclist volume). • >_ 9' width (> 750 peak hour directional bicyclist volume). Bike Lane with Adjacent For segments of the primary street network with on-street parking: Parking Lane • >_ 15' bike lane + parking lane width. • Bike lane should include buffers to both the traffic and parking lanes. Bike Lane with No Adjacent For segments of the primary street network without on-street parking: Parking Lane* • > 7' buffered bike lane. • Note: while the ODOT methodology to achieve segment BLTS 1 (Exhibit 14-5) permits a 7' minimum on-street buffered bike lane (inclusive of buffer) for a 2-lane, 25 mph roadway, per the 2024 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, this facility would not achieve the highest level of comfort and be considered below the standard of separated bike lanes and shared use path alternatives. Neighborhood Greenways No centerline, 750 - 51,500 ADT, local streets Distance Between Crossing <_ 0.10 mi (-500 ft) Opportunities Based on the ODOT BLTS methodology outlined in the Analysis Procedures Manual Chaoter 14-Section 14.4 and incorporating best practice principles from the 2024 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities Page 160 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE A2. INTERSECTION BITS 1 DESIGN CRITERIA INTERSECTION DESIGN CRITERIA FEATURE Right Turn Lanes Bike lanes may not jog across or to the left of a dedicated right turn lane to be considered BLTS 1. There are two scenarios to achieve BLTS 1 at intersections with on-street bike lanes to the right of dedicated right turn lanes: • A bike signal to separate bike and vehicular right turn movements. • A protected intersection design where bikes shift right, away from the curbline, and cross the intersection adjacent to the pedestrian crossing, with a bike signal or with the pedestrian signal. Left Turn Lanes Two-stage left turn maneuver- either with a protected intersection or with bike box/left turn queue box markings. Unsignalized Crossings For segments with <_ 3 total through and turning lanes, these crossings are without a Median appropriate when: • <_ 1,200 ADT on local streets. • 53,000 ADT on collector streets. Unsignalized Crossing These crossings should be used for streets with higher volumes than above and with a Median should consist of: • 1 crossing lane per direction. • Median refuge z 10'width. Roundabout Crossings Bicyclists should be provided a shared (with pedestrians) or separate pathway around the roundabout outside the roadway. The following criteria should be met: • Single lane entry or exit with splitter island refuge >_ 10' width. • 1 circulating lane. • Non-tangential entry (to create vehicle deflection). • Separate bike and pedestrian facilities or shared use path width >_ 10' (2024 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 11.10.3). • Per the 2021 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Pedestrian Facilities (Figure 3-39) and ODOT BLTS (pg. 21), 20'-30' setback required from edge of circulating roadway to crossing to allow for reaction time for exiting vehicles while minimizing out-of-direction travel. • To transition from on-street bike lanes to/from the sidewalk level pathway around the roundabout, separate bike ramps or shared bike/pedestrian ramp with > 10' width are required. Signalized Crossings (at To maintain BLTS 1, signalized intersections require: Arterials) • Bike detection or activation or pre-timed signals. • No permissive left or right turns. • Bike signals and/or bike turn boxes to treat right- and left-turn conflicts. • Protected intersection treatments. Other Criteria No frequent bike lane blockages due to transit, loading, etc. Based on the ODOT BLTS methodology outlined in the Analysis Procedures Manual Chapter 14- Section 14.4 and incorporating best practice principles from the 2024 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities Page 161 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Appendix B - Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS) Design Requirements TABLE B1. SEGMENT PLTS 1 DESIGN CRITERIA FACILITY DESIGN CRITERIA Sidewalk Condition Good (new construction) Sidewalk Width >_ 6 typical, >— 8' in higher foot-traffic and commercial areas Physical Buffer Type Landscaped (with or without street trees) or solid surface. Solid surface could include a sidewalk-level bike lane, hardscape with a surface material change such as pavers or stamped concrete, hardscape with planters, street furniture, etc. Total Buffering Width >_ 10'that includes the width of the landscaped or solid surface buffer plus the width of any parking, shoulder, or bike lane. Distance Between Crossing Opportunities <_ 0.10 mi (-500 ft) Based on the ODOT PLTS methodology outlined in the Analysis Procedurs1 Manual Chapter 14- Section 14.5. Page 162 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN TABLE 62. INTERSECTION PLTS 1 DESIGN CRITERIA INTERSECTION FEATURE DESIGN CRITERIA Unsignalized Crossings at Collectors or All ramps to be designed as standard ramps. Local Streets Crossing types: • 2 crossing lanes with no median refuge is acceptable for <_ 30 mph and <_ 5,000 vpd. • 1 crossing lane in each direction with median refuge is acceptable for < 30 mph and >_ 5,000 vpd. Requires >_ 10' median refuge width. The following items may improve the PLTS: • Enhanced markings and signage. • Illumination. • Pedestrian activated beacons (e.g., RRFB). • In-street signs. • Curb extensions. • Raised crosswalks. • Standard 12" flashing beacons. Roundabout Crossings Single lane entry or exit crossings with splitter island refuge 10' width. Signalized Crossings (at Arterials) Signalized crossings will generally be PLTS 1. However, no permissive left or right turns are allowed. Pedestrian signal countdown features are required. Lighting Adequate illumination of the intersection. Other Criteria PLTS 1 is not achieved if any of the following conditions exist: • Crossing distance > 72' or more than 6 lanes (or equivalents such as a parking lane). • Non-standard geometry (such as more than 4 legs or highly skewed approaches). • Closed or limited crosswalk legs. • Free-flow or yield-controlled channelized right turns. Based on the ODOT PLTS methodology outlined in the AnatVSiS PrQc dares Manual Chaoter 14 Section 14.5. Page 163 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Appendix C - Walkshed Analysis Maps 4 , Jnskie\-- ` � -C: ,°°� - '-ir 1 — _ - _- - - t;1 _./ - -- Coned A ----N. r ,.. ici.... 1 p_S r - 4 -1 - __ RT2:0 WEST RT 2.0 WEST C 1 \----- ' WEST g I RT2.0I r • FIGURE Cl: HALF-MILE WALKSHED FOR SCENARIO 1. Page 164 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN \\\\ > L _ Hslh School 1 1 0 . r 1 iJ Ca„nr,e,A L_ LEI- RT 2.0 WEST.0 .. RT 2.0 WEST AN i` Wit ,'\4?1_,_...-- '(;.: _-_ ii. L . ' RT 2.0 WEST Caw6 A FIGURE C2; HALF-MILE WALKSHED FOR SCENARIO 2. Page 165 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE L. June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN \' t j.... ., • •I N\\..6.- CJ: .,--_ ✓� am-4. V . OMM»Idi�A 1 , RT 2-0 WEST RT 2.0 WEST \`4.....__1 II. ao III RT 20 WEST cameo p lie i` -- 1 FIGURE C3: HALF-MILE WALKSHED FOR SCENARIO 3. Page 166 RIVER 9 Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN s - Z 1___-J IkuMaInside' .,i?):21: _it f ... " u... , T1_ ___ cr, ,. ,,i __ c { I s RT 2.0 WEST IP II RT 2.0 WEST C Alla '-..' lik i ltt?1,- .1.- I . (...._ _ \44l- 1 1<43 � —�— ____,M ...... ....".6". : .,_ RT 2.0 WEST Commasulat R ii---- 4 r , c ,k,;-% „,040:;,y- ' ' „. . .. . " _,........_,......, , ( l: I FIGURE C4: HALF-MILE WALKSHED FOR SCENARIO 4. Page 167 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June 2025 COMMUNITY PLAN r„.....__ ,,,, , , , ., ii ____, - 4_ ,p 1.--' 7 : _ i?1 c i z , _.1-r, •- V . 4ilP 1 -- . \ � � crili .1_, y� —ij , es lit t'' --- - - ----- f i .,..4.-...,1 I --) NT 231T i RTu tl litv, dill 1, )i C.:___ _......... • r ,-1 ' 4 I1.i t Y, S . J `I l f' - gig= RT2.0WEST V; 1 i FIGURE CS: ONE-MILE WALKSHED FOR SCENARIO 1. Page 168 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Fiat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN r7, • l - - - yt-1;: - - IIII Ins KEST \Nr RT 2A WERT ll [---/ , 1 t i/ , _,, . . ,(-7.. . ..._j.T, \ '' l'i 1' '\?51TD. 1 �� --13 r_i I .... 1- R2.a a i :I , , + l FIGURE C6: ONE-MILE WALKSHED FOR SCENARIO 2. Page 169 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN -,41 L-- ,, 4 _l__) '.. 1\ j f . 1\1 q . , , , S.,.6. � NM � - Lp __,,_„ ..: L ea ei IF _ __ 1-1 glif . l KT2D WES'r RI20 WEST r , :I.; ■ r • c, . L, y �_a I (:). i 4 (-_'} \ ..L,,, / Rrza}stsr . FIGURE C7: ONE-MILE WALKSHED FOR SCENARIO 3. Page 170 RIVER q Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN ti .. .4?)..:____ I , -.4 - Cr--14 _}._ - cri_4.1 , \"*-.�, litiii4 NM c_, Will 41 1 . ").1 - u]S\ - ' -1 la I; --- ,4 (b.j LTh. 4 1.1.4 , ...__.___,. )1 11., ) 4ri,/ '4° rj ........n ) ._•:__;71] '-',i._ 1 RI-2D NEST 11 FIGURE C8: ONE-MILE WALKSHED FOR SCENARIO 4. Page 171 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN Appendix D - Primary Street Impervious Surface Area Calculations TABLE Dl. PRIMARY STREET IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS SCENARIO CROSS-SECTION ASSUMPTIONS LENGTH IMPERVIOUS HARDSCAPE OF SURFACE WIDTH SEGMENT AREA A SUP one side (16'), Assumes 12' lanes for roadway, not inclusive of 1.05 mi .'288,300 sidewalk opposite gutter. Does not account for any intersection or 5,544 SQFT side (8'), total widening for turn lanes. ft asphalt paved Does not account for curb ramp/corner roadway (24'), curb hardscape. and gutter(2' + 2') = 52' Assumes landscaped buffer between curb and SUP/ sidewalk. Does not account for hardscape, concrete pads on sidewalk for bus stop locations, potential parking/loading zones, or choice of hardscape buffer for a tactile warning strip or street furniture. Unidirectional bike Assumes 12' lanes for roadway, not inclusive of 1.05 mi —332,600 lanes both sides gutter. Does not account for any intersection or 5,544 SQFT (sidewalk-level or widening for turn lanes. ft intermediate level) Does not account for curb ramp/corner both sides (8' + 8'), hardscape. sidewalks both sides (8' + 8'), total Assumes landscaped buffer between curb and asphalt paved sidewalk-level bike lanes and between sidewalk- roadway (24'), curb level bike lanes and sidewalk. and gutter(2' + 2') Does not account for hardscape, concrete pads = 60' on sidewalk for bus stop locations, potential parking/loading zones, or choice of hardscape buffer for a tactile warning strip or street furniture. Does not assume an intermediate-level bikeway. B SUP one side (16'), See previous. 1.69 mi —464,000 sidewalk opposite or 8,923 SQFT side (8'), total ft asphalt paved roadway (24'), curb and gutter(2' + 2') = 52' Unidirectional bike See previous. 1.69 mi —535,400 lanes both sides or 8,923 SQFT (sidewalk-level or ft intermediate level) both sides (8' + 8'), sidewalks both sides (8' + 8'), total asphalt paved roadway (24'), curb and gutter (2' + 2') = 60' Page 172 RIVER Evaluation of Tile Flat Extension Scenarios TERRACE June2025 COMMUNITY PLAN SCENARIO CROSS-SECTION ASSUMPTIONS LENGTH IMPERVIOUS HAROSCAPE OF SURFACE WIDTH SEGMENT AREA C SUP one side (16'), See previous. 1.68 mi —461,200 sidewalk opposite or 8,870 SQFT side (8'), total ft asphalt paved roadway (24'), curb and gutter (2' + 2') = 52' Unidirectional bike See previous. 1.68 mi —532,200 lanes both sides or 8,870 SQFT (sidewalk-level or ft intermediate level) both sides (8' + 8'), sidewalks both sides (8' + 8'), total asphalt paved roadway (24'), curb and gutter(2' + 2') = 60' D SUP one side (16'), See previous. 2.32 mi —637,000 sidewalk opposite or 12,250 SQFT side (8'), total ft asphalt paved roadway (24'), curb and gutter(2' + 2') — 52' Unidirectional bike See previous. 2.32 mi —735,000 lanes both sides or 12,250 SQFT (sidewalk-level or ft intermediate level) both sides (8' + 8'), sidewalks both sides (8' + 8'), total asphalt paved roadway (24'), curb and gutter (2' + 2') = 60' Page 173 Tigard River Terrace 2.0 - Tile Flat Extension Evaluation (Draft 6-10-2025) Criteria Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Al.Total Vehicle Miles Traveled Ideal Definition:Total VMT decreases on the Arterial and Total VMT change from no-build:-0.5% r,i i I i.ii i:,, I1,111 rn) hiiiI,1 i I.i)" Total VMT change from no-build:-0.4% Total VMT change from no-build:-0.3% Primary and Secondary Street network*as the RT 2.0 Primary and Secondary Street network is constructed and accommodates more local trips. y A2.VMT on the Primary and Secondary Street Network i Ideal Definition:The RT 2.0 Primary and Secondary Street 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% network*serves local trips and discourages regional cut- through traffic. i i e B.Quantity of Travel 3 Ideal Definition:Forecasted average daily traffic volumes ADT volumes are higher along Mountainside Way Slighly higher ADT volumes along Mountainside Highest overall ADT volumes on the Primary and Secondary Street network are compared to Scenarios 1 and 3 Way compared to Scenario 1,'but otherwise Z consistent with that of a Collector through a residential similiar to 3 neighborhood,with the ideal condition being under 6,000 u s ADT ai ri C.Intersection Capacity Ideal Definition:Intersections are forecasted to be less One intersection exceeds the current mobility Two intersections exceed the current mobility One intersection exceeds the current mobility One intersection exceeds the current mobility congested once the RT 2.0 Primary and Secondary Street target.This scenario results in the highest v/c target.This scenario results in improved target.This scenario results in similar operations target.This scenario results in improved network is constructed,with intersections forecasted to ratios on Scholls Ferry and competitive or lower operations along Scholls Ferry with some on Scholls Ferry to Scenario 1,improved operations along Scholls Ferry with some operate with a v/c ratio that is at or below the current 0.99 v/c ratios along Roy Rogers. degradation of operations at the Roy Rogers& operations along parts of Roy Rogers,and some degradation of operations at the Roy Rogers mobility target Bull Mountain intersection. degradation of operations at the Roy Rogers& intersections with Bull Mountain and Perth. Perth intersection. D.Travel Time Ideal Definition:Forecasted travel times for regional trips* 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) 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. Tigard River Terrace 2.0 - Tile Flat Extension Evaluation (Draft 6-10-2025) Criteria Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 A.Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Ideal Condition:Minimal investment to create BLTS 1. Achieves BLTS 1 with some costs for median Achieves BLTS 1 with some costs for additional Achieves BLTS 1 with some costs for median crossings at all locations median crossings crossings at all locations B.Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Ideal Condition:Minimal investment to create PLTS 1. thieves PLTS 1 with some costs for additional Achieves PLTS 1 with some costs for additional Achieves PLTS 1 with some costs for additional Y median crossings median crossings median crossings CU z C.Connectivity t` Ideal Condition:high performance in local and regional Provides sufficient connectivity for development Provides additional local and regional connectivity Provides additional local connectivity and Provides the most local and regionafCQot ectivity cconnectivity and walkshed coverage. and good walkshed coverage and walkshed coverage walkshed coverage and walkslhed'Eoverages E D.Vulnerable Road User Safety 2 Ideal Condition:vulnerable road user crash exposure is Lowest VRU crash exposure VRU crash exposure is higher than Scenario 1 VRU crash exposure is somewhat higher than VRU crash exposure is-considerably higher than 'si zero. Scenario 1 Scenario 1 E.Future Transit Service Ideal Condition:high performance in base coverage,route Primary route provides good coverage and lowest Alternative routes available but may reduce Alternative routes could provide additional Alternative routes could reduce commercial options,and minimal transit delay. traffic volumes minimize delays coverage.Traffic volumes may result in some residential coverage but reduce commercial exposure.Traffic volumes may result in transit transit delays exposure. 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 Emissions potential is somewhat higher than Emissions potential ls.ce si•e. y, i her than A Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 1" a m J B.Natural Resource Impacts Ideal Condition:minimal impact to streams,trees, Fewest stream crossings,some impact to trees, Additional stream crossing,some impact to trees, Additional stream crossing,some impact to trees, Two additional stream crossings,some impact to To c wetlands,and impervious surface lowest impervious surface potential wetlands impact,increased impervious increased impervious surface trees,potential wetlands impact,highest m £ surface impervious surface c 0 C.Livability Impacts of Regional Vehicle Trips c W Ideal Condition:cut-through traffic is minimized(zero vpd) Lowest cut-through traffic and a small proportion Cut-through traffic is considerably higher than Some increase in cut-through traffic compared to Cut-through traffic is considerably higher.than `" of street volume Scenario 1 and high proportion of street volume Scenario 1 and relatively small portion of street Scenario 1 and high proportion Of street.volume volume Tigard River Terrace 2.0 -Tile Flat Extension Evaluation (Draft 6-10-2025) Criteria Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 A.Support to Commercial Areas Ideal Condition:maximize traffic passing by and walkshed Provides highest overall pass-by traffic but lower Provides highest pass-by traffic for RRBM and Provides best performance for SFMW but lower Provides best performance for RRBM but lower coverage for commercial areas walkshed coverage good walkshed coverage pass-by traffic for RRBM pass-by traffic for SFMW B.Land Use&Development Feasibility Ideal Condition:least impact to development with costs Higher costs may have implications on funding Higher costs may have implications on funding Highest costs may have significant implications on contained to those supported by development strategy.Some additional dedication needs strategy.Some additional dedication needs and funding strategy.Some additional dedication potential impacts on development yield on needs Vandermost C.Order of Magnitude Infrastructure Costs Y Ideal Condition:lower costs contained to those supported Approximately double the cost of Scenario 1 and Higher cost compared to Scenario 1 and may need Approaching triple the cost of Scenario 1 and may by development may need CIP,County,or City funding sources CIP,County,or City funding sources need CIP,County,or City funding sources o. aD.Timing,Phasing,and Project Cost Ideal Condition:development can be phased to delay Additional stream crossing may bring forward Additional stream crossing may bring forward Two additional stream crossings may bring a infrastructure costs costs costs forward costs E.Fire,Life,and Safety Ideal Condition:meets fire,life,safety with minimal impact Meets fire,life safety needs with some impacts on Meets fire,life safety needs with multiple Meets fire,life safety needs with some impacts on Meets fire,life safety needs with multiple on development yield and response times development on Vandermost accesses and response directions.Higher traffic development on Vandermost accesses and response directions.Higher traffic volumes may impact emergency response time volumes may impact emergency response time A.Equitable Impacts Z Ideal Condition:no impacts to vulnerable populations Lowest exposure to emissions,noise,and crash Higher exposure to emission,noise,and crash Higher exposure to emission,noise,and crash Highest exposure to emission,noise,and crash 0- risk but some impacts from climate resilience risk,impacts to housing affordability and climate risk,impacts to housing affordability and climate risk and impacts to housing affordability and resilience resilience.Increased connectivity 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 conditions RIVER AO‘44 TERRACE A . COMMUNITY PLAN River Terrace 2.0 Transportation Update Tigard City Council July 15, 2025 Presentation Topics RT2.o • Transportation deliverables overview Transportation • Engagement update Update • Draft transportation network • Tile Flat Extension Scenarios Evaluation Council direction on a preferred network scenario is requested . RIVER TERRACE - .. .. •-. .- . . COMMUNITY FLRq Transportation Deliverables Overview RT 2.0 Transportation Deliverables RT 2.0 1. Develop preliminary street network Transportation Update 2. Tile Flat Extension Scenarios Analysis 3. Final multimodal transportation network 4. Street designs 5. Infrastructure project list and cost estimates 6. Transportation System Plan Amendment RIVER TERRACE � COMMUNITY PLAID Engagement Update Transportation Outreach Engagement • Public Open Houses (Apr. 2025) Update • Advisory Committees: "1111r a ► • • CAC meeting #2 Oct. 2024) :4r • CAC meeting #5 (Mar. 2025) �. L • TAC meeting #3 (Apr. 2025) II A P • Focus Groups (Apr. 2025): • Spanish-speakers 40111, • Students j . _ • Summer engagement plans RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN What we 've heard so far Transportation • Prioritize comfort and safety for walkers and bikers Outreach • Lessen 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 RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN Draft Transportation Network River Terrace 2.0-Street Network Recommended Tile Flat Extension Option .. SKanUetp Str h T (KIN*Irempcnatan Caweetlor f ` PY9onott Troth 0 P-oposed Parts .. • Piopoled Roundabout .... , �\� , Reposed ttatttc Sgna+ Draft Street 3 ♦ • RtoPoled ROI a.001 out 111 RT 1.0 PNOS1.Vn Croswxl Network . )' -- ErnungSPeet —RT 7 JRounw.y • + JV • RT 2.0 WEST r------------_ 1:..mdmi • ______ Q � _1-- ,-...„ .._ ,.. . .?„. . ...., F. t..,_ _ . . 3 ...., \ .--- RT 2.0 SOUTH Il Cereioped Gy Ray ON ,�, — River Terrace 2.0-Active Transportation Network Recommended Tile Flat Extension Option -,-, 1 , eree Proposed I- h ,-.101111(+ , •i• Peoposed lr h, III Prop:nee Pa-al ....._\\.-1 ; :-.. , • Pl000ml Roundabout I I I Proposed Ttaritc Segue Draft Active , ---,-..:1 , p....„„Rogrtlfn RIM out k RT 1.0 A Ped r.eal q Cacnvly —Exning Siteti • ,- Transportation , 1 ,.. , , _RI 2 0 BoAdm, Network _ 1 - 0111111111Gr I \ RT 2.0 WEST( 1-------------- .......,, ik - \ # I \,.. ( 1 I % ___,_ r . _....)......., ... /--- ... -, fr J { --;,. ....„ if. ...; ,RT 2.0 SOUTH I - •• I i .....-......-..-.-.-...... __ _..,,... .._ _ / I I1 1 .0,-....• i I r-, ...._ ==1' 1 1 ....._ i s hrys or re 5(e hreash denufluPud Re ION CA, Tile Flat Extension Scenarios Evaluation Background & Scope Tile Flat • Tile Flat extension originally identified in County Extension studies and plans Scenarios Evaluation • Identified as a special study area in RT2.0 Concept Plan • More analysis needed to study alternatives and compliance with regional and state requirements (ex: CFEC requirements) • Scoped as a holistic analysis of anticipated performance, benefits, and impacts RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN Scenario 1 Scenario 2 SWkno:Rd,Rif T SW 5,9•by Rd Tile Flat A -__1 A 1 Extension 5,..: _4- ju__ B „R� Sw ck,<. 's I [WEST] B } [WEST] Scenarios L._� t Evaluation sw—n,-_,.Rd ,:r,R. Rd P 3 p A It I I 'I 1 II S.C,MN ez I S.4 Cu Mi-Ra I I II I< ; @ L__._- 3 �.�_._._._..._.�- 3 Y 0, sw 3 •� r."l L..::vr SW 1.4,0ln I I Scenario 3 Scenario 4 SW ScS fey v PC SW Ss,s f:•n KC Tile Flat A 1 •Extension f s,.:,-.- :.,1 S01,44.001 SWt.. .;. Scenarios ; I [WEST] B [WEST] • Evaluation k I 1 g _ 1 I A 3 I A ' ,� rue. tam Kd f N SW 0.M:,Pd I I [ . z C Y L C -: N 3 r R i f I I f i Evaluation Metrics 1. Vehicular Network 4. Development Feasibility Tile Flat • Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) • Support to Commercial Areas Extension • Quantity of Travel • Land Use and Development • Intersection Capacity Feasibility Scenarios • Travel Time • Order-of-Magnitude Infrastructure Costs Evaluation 2. Multimodal Network • Timing, Phasing, and Project • Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Cost • • Fire, Life, Safety • Connectivity • Vulnerable Road User Safety 5. Equity • Future Transit Service • Equitable Benefits 3. Environmental/ Livability • GHG and Emissions • Natural Resource Impacts • Livability Impacts of Regional Vehicle Trips RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN Evaluation Findings Scenario 1: Tile Flat • Lowest cost and natural resource impacts Extension • Fewer cars internally and on surrounding network overall Scenarios • Best safety and climate resilience performance • Sufficient connectivity for all modes Evaluation Scenarios 213, and 4: • Improve connectivity but with significant added costs (double or more), natural resource impacts, and vehicle trips • How would this affect different groups? o Residents: greater safety risks and emissions, potential added housing costs o Regional Travelers: more cars overall, little to no improvements to traffic congestion o Developers: increased costs, potential phasing issues, less land for housing RIVER 9 TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN Recommendation Tile Flat Extension Scenarios Staff and consultants recommend Scenario 1. Evaluation • Greatest overall benefits and good connectivity • Lowest costs and impacts to natural resources a n d residents RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN Council Direction Tile Flat Council direction requested on a preferred transportation Extension network scenario. Scenarios Evaluation Next Steps: • Finalize the street network • Begin Transportation System Plan Amendment and Equitable Finance Strategy RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN Aend& 1-iv 6- River Terrace 2.0 -Active Transportation Network Recommended Tile Flat Extension Option 0 1?. Mountainside Ped/Bike Facilities Z ro High School SW Schol\s Ferry Rd -•- Proposed Ped/Bike Facilities �,<, — Proposed Trails w ��� ` Proposed Parks (Commercial v o III Proposed Roundabout 'ili 1 (Area N A ' Proposed Traffic Signal 0 lit i` ���;MOP MIN MEM s� Proposed Right-in/Right-out <�s. ��'� RT 1.0 A Pedestrian Crossing ro L — Existing Street ri, k n — RT 2.0 Boundary -o. .............\ r 1 I� 1 —1 Jean Louise Rd jiiii-j I 0 r iv = Commercial T RT 2.0 WEST I a. Area ♦_ �l Bull Mountain Rd 1r ` 1 4 ( SW Dekalb St x SW Perth Rd 0 0 ....Jac m Q Art Rutkin //// Elementary School N r—t 4 RT 2.0 SOUTH D ro SW Lasich Ln Commercial I 1 I d Future Lasich Park I Area 1 •;I � kgid� 1 00 ' I i I fl_ Kingston Terrace-being developed by King City ' --- i 0 N Mehda- l-1e w, 5" River Terrace 2.0 - Street Network Recommended Tile Flat Extension Option 0 D Primary Street 1N Mountainside Rd Potential Primary Street m High School SW SchoUs Ferry Secondary Street to Active Transportation Connection ,, l';- — Proposed Trails Commercial v, o Proposed Parks Area o • Proposed Roundabout cu "..----T 1 s� I Proposed Traffic Signal DJ�d 9q, Proposed Right-in/Right-out ,_‘' It) X D 6- RT 1.0 . A Pedestrian Crossing rD - Existing Street _, ( — RT 2.0 Boundary —� Jean Louise Rd oh ......., as i r, r1;IT W RT 2.0 WEST �. Commercial Q o Area \''\ 7 Bull Mountain Rd SW Dekalb St K _ 1 0 SW Perth Rd 0 0 La ro tn n. T v • Art Rutkin r- Elementary School r-t RT 2.0 SOUTH D !D SW Lasich Ln ��•1 Commercial I Future Lasich Park Area • �eeE$e�apa ' z m 7, I D m o_ Kingston Terrace-being developed by King City (-1.1.) AIS-5845 6. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 07/15/2025 Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: Briefing on Tigard HOME (Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and Enterprise) Authored By: Trinity Miller Presented By: Associate Planner Miller Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Public Hearing No Legal Ad Required?: Publication Date: Information EXPLANATION OF ISSUE Receive briefing on the Tigard HOME (Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and Enterprise) long-range planning project. ACTION REQUESTED No formal action requested. Discussion and feedback. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On May 17, 2022, staff introduced the Tigard HOME (Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and Enterprise) project to the Planning Commission and City Council at a joint briefing. Urban agriculture and livestock regulations were included as a part of the project scope. However, due to the mounting public comment received on the subject,the Commission and Council deemed urban agriculture and livestock regulations a priority.Therefore, staff were directed to fast track the urban agriculture and livestock component of the project and work with the community to develop a solution. In November 2022, Council adopted new urban livestock regulations. Following the urban agriculture code adoption, staff began community outreach efforts for the next phase of the HOME project,which aims to provide more economic mobility and economic activity options for community members living in Tigard by facilitating more flourishing self-contained communities where housing, economic, and entertainment options are easily accessible to a variety of mobility types (walking/biking/rolling). The Tigard HOME project experienced delays due to key staff turnover. Additionally, after receiving bids for the original community ambassador scope of work,the project team evaluators felt the bids did not meet expectations to successfully complete the project. Therefore, this Informational Request for Proposal (IRFP) was canceled. Before releasing a second IRFP,the city reexamined alternative engagement strategies to accomplish the scope of work. Experts indicated that facilitating meetings with activities tailored to existing Tigard community groups are best practices. Alongside the alternative facilitation approach,Tigard will continue to use creative engagement strategies, such as pop-up events with food trucks. A second IRFP was issued in March 2025 with a successful bid awarded in April. On June 18, 2025, the Community Development (CD) department held a CD Get Together focused on Tigard HOME. This CD Get Together kicked-off a robust community engagement plan for the Tigard HOME project. More than 80 people from across the city attended the CD Get Together. Attendees participated in creative engagement activities at four stations to provide their input on creating walkable communities with shops and services in Tigard neighborhoods. In this briefing we will: • Re-introduce Tigard HOME • Review takeaways from recent community engagement efforts Public Involvement Robust community engagement will be the core of the Tigard HOME project.The success of the Tigard HOME project relies on effective community engagement. We are focused on people who live in Tigard and want engagement to reflect the diversity of our community. We want to ensure HOME solutions are truly built by all community members, not just those who speak English and/or feel naturally comfortable being part of government processes. Grant funding from Metro and the City's committed funding will support creative engagement with Tigard community members who typically do not have their voice heard. Project funding will be used to overcome barriers such as language and access to government processes. The engagement plan uses multiple strategies to connect with our community. Engagement strategies will include hosting tables, pop-up events in neighborhoods, community-based organization outreach, and hosting community dinners. Our engagement plan includes: 1. Hosting tables at various businesses and events throughout the city where residents can answer short engagement questions.This is also an opportunity to introduce the HOME project to the community and direct interested people to the project's Engage page for additional engagement. 2. Pop-up events in neighborhoods, where we will host an interactive creative engagement activity. This approach meets our community where they are. Priority locations are neighborhoods identified as the most socially vulnerable.The pop-up events are also an opportunity to demonstrate what activating a residential neighborhood with a new use could look and feel like. 3. Targeted outreach with Community-Based Organizations (CBO) which will be instrumental in reaching voices not typically heard. 4. Community Dinners for a dinner and discussion with staff about the HOME project. Common themes we've seen in responses so far indicate that the community supports creating walkable communities by bringing shops and services to their neighborhoods. Impacts (Community, Budget, Policies and Plans/Strategic Connection) The HOME project will allow for greater community-building and complete neighborhoods throughout Tigard. Specific solutions will be built together with the community only after significant engagement identifies top community priorities. Ultimately,this project should allow for: •Community gatherings, amenities, services, activities at a neighborhood scale. •Safe connections for all mobility types. • Bringing activities closer to residents; make walking/biking/rolling more attractive. •Creative right-of-way(ROW) management strategies. • Empowering homeowners and renters to use their property/homes as they see fit while anticipating and mitigating negative impacts for neighbors. This project delivers on Community Promises for equity and engagement. Additionally,Tigard HOME is a champion of Council Goal 1: Creating housing opportunities for current and future residents and supports Council Goal 2: Elevate economic opportunities for current and future residents.The Tigard HOME project will analyze the current residential zoning code and consider changes to the code that will increase the variety of housing types while balancing community input and the infrastructure capacity needs of the city.The Tigard HOME project will grow the city's economic base with needed goods, services, and jobs expanded into the residential areas. By bringing needed goods and services to the residential areas,Tigard HOME will reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), resulting in enhanced environmental sustainability and resilience.The intangible outcomes of the project will cultivate Tigard as a great place to live, work, and play. The tangible deliverable of this project is a set of policy and development code amendment recommendations to be considered by City Council for adoption.Any final policy changes are at the discretion of the City Council.The intangible outcomes of this project will be the result of meaningful, robust public engagement. • Build public trust in the planning process; and • Educate and seek to empower the public about planning issues and their relevance to an individual's life. Dates of Previous and Potential Future Considerations Previous Considerations: • May 17, 2022: Introduction to the Tigard HOME project. • November 2022:Adoption of urban livestock regulations. Project Delay and Reevaluation: • Key staff turnover •Community Ambassador IRFP canceled • Reevaluation and award of alternative Community Engagement IRFP Future Considerations: • Fall 2025: Briefings with updates on community input. •Summer 2026: Briefings with updates on potential solutions, preparing ideas for adoption. • Late 2026: Bring solutions for adoption ALTERNATIVES& RECOMMENDATION N/A ADDITIONAL RESOURCES N/A Attachments Presentation A AOlie ti ik , M t :. ! ® g x,. f � • n . + � , e bi -ti ;r1' • ott iti A • . .' '•..• CI' i ilk TIGARD HOME Housing, opportunity, Mobility, & Enterprise e. Presented by Trinity Miller, Associate Planner I July 15, 2025 TThe 5 E's—Tigard's Community Promise: Equity• Environment• Economy• Engagement• Excellence igard Tigard HOME (Housing, Opportunity, Mobility and Enterprise) • Deliver policy and code amendment recommendations • Housing, economic, and entertainment options accessible to many mobility types • Provide options at a neighborhood appropriate scale • Awarded $95,000 grant funds from Metro CITY OF Tigard The 5 E's-Tigard's Community Promise: Equity • Environment • Economy• Engagement• Excellence Purpose and Need • Community desires more: • Amenities within walking distance of their home • Freedom regarding how they use their home or property • Straightforward processes • Attractive and safe pedestrian connections • CITY OF Tigard The 5 E's-Tigard's Community Promise: Equity • Environment • Economy• Engagement• Excellence _ I Becoming Complete Neighborhoods / -� - P _ r ... ' ..a • Limited ability to become . -: - pK �u,, ,� ... ..o complete neighborhoods .,. _, • Lack of walkable access to � :._ , u` commercial amenities, work z R ' or services. _ - I • Mitigate potential 1" ..) { -� __ - uisances and hazards .� .:u , - - n .., l IS "Sea of Yellow" Residential Zones • CITY OF Tigard The 5 E's—Tigard's Community Promise: Equity• Environment • Economy• Engagement• Excellence Tigard HOME Goal This project aims to: • Bring more nearby shops and services to neighborhoods • Expand home and property use options • Simplify neighborhood business rules • Create safer, more connected walking paths • Reduce vehicle miles traveled CITY OF Tigard The 5 E's-Tigard's Community Promise: Equity • Environment • Economy• Engagement • Excellence Outside of Project Scope • Urban Agriculture & Livestock �.^ . • , (Adopted November 2022) lam ` .r< • Employment and industrial areas ,, i,�� � , (Tigard MADE) • Plan Districts and mixed-use zoning districts - _ - �` 0111:47 � CITY OF Tigard The 5 E's-Tigard's Community Promise: Equity • Environment • Economy• Engagement• Excellence Previous and Future Considerations • May 17, 2022: Introduction to the Tigard HOME project. • November 2022: Adoption of urban livestock regulations. PROJECT DELAY & REEVALUATION • Fall 2025 & Early 2026: Briefings on Summer and Winter Community Engagement input. • Summer 2026: Briefings with potential solutions, preparing for adoption. • Late 2026: Bring solutions for adoption. 11Z- CITY OF Tigard The 5 E's-Tigard's Community Promise: Equity • Environment • Economy• Engagement• Excellence Engagement Plan .., .,010 •- - ,,its , , . '3. , :' - ri; 1 , .-:-_, , .- -14,..ti., „a....,, , ,, i u , ._i ,i Chit.,', k,,, , , 4.44 JK'. r ; /fv ,/! ��� , „A al'-:!, • Tom , I F —1 I CITY OF • - L Hosting Tables Pop-up Events Community Dinners Based Organizations- - - ez CITY OF Tigard The 5 E's—Tigard's Community Promise: Equity• Environment • Economy• Engagement• Excellence Project Management Team Consultants :nN _FIRST/ -- - - _ _ ASSOCIATES ',FORTY -_ - FEET t • �I 1 .t E q �, 9, .,^ • • • Ilii 11 0--t_A__ _ _ .._ • ' V _ ®va . ,_______ r1ill' ice Zan Associates First Forty Feet 0 Community Engagement Urban Design Storyteller . CITY OF Tigard The 5 E's—Tigard's Community Promise: Equity • Environment • Economy• Engagement • Excellence J June Community Develo ment Get Together '' C p g r M • Wednesday, June 18th at _ �_ _ I � � ,:.;,. �'' 1 I r.� F' ► `i 4 `_;_ i� .ems _ Universal Plazao �� ,� �, �,1� _ • Over 80 attendees from -I across Tigard ���' , �: 'ii _ _ ____ • Overall strong community -=0� '� _ i _ support r _ _ ■ CD Get Together attendees participating at the Preference Survey station. 0 CITY OF Tigard The 5 E's—Tigard's Community Promise: Equity• Environment• Economy• Engagement• Excellence Project Overview ----z_____, ---- -----r- .- TIGARD HOME A. j1 0 'r -=g" ,� -�� • Introduced project goals and tea,, �1'I NI'. f :r� - timeline �. •# , r ; � Placed a sticker on a map o •� , � ; .rt ' showing where they live or work ,�� y �� � , - in Tigard. .iii:' • Attendees from across the city { _ • Staff at the Project Overview station with a mapping activity and project handouts. CITY OF dThe 5 E's—Tigard's Community Promise: Equity• Environment• Economy• Engagement• Excellence I i g a r Design Your Dream Neighborhood r. , k r _ .� . x, 41 41 '° « • Participants used craft supplies ,/ '4 h,• r. ram' > � •�'4 ► - � �► - . ; ' and toys to model their dream `j "' neighborhood. ^ N. ..d , m •v +• el Participants use toys to model their dream neighborhood while discussing their design with Tigard staff . CITY OF The 5 E's—Tigard's Community Promise: Equity• Environment • Economy • Engagement • Excellence Tigard 'NINICi'TYPES OF BUSINESSES AND ZQUE TIPCPS DE NEGC;CI' S Y SEC- SERVICES ix YOU WISH WERE VIC1OS DESEARIA QUE ESTUVIERAN LOSER TO YOUR Iit3"E? Ir;AS CERCA DE SU CASA? Preference Survey - " !� .r ,f, 16 /ot it • 41 - 3 2 4 ICIP , - ‘IC' ,"-,,... ','- HARKL,:C WI Health&Wellness `• I _ I— 1 1 G 0 4 „. ° ..2,L, _ "....or 5"•^' • lig" 1, - Shoe 1 Market I Cafer iq„r .' 1. �.. ii ..... Restaurants " " ` l id • 22 0 Adam wait. no EN - el-- .,'_M [11,A,Retails I Goods a • CITY OF Tigard The 5 E's-Tigard's Community Promise: Equity • Environment • Economy• Engagement • Excellence i WN'I'7 DESIGN FEATURES WOULD zGUE CARACTERISTICAS DE DISENC FTT OF I.I.FCR ENCAIARIAN BIEN EN LOS EDIFICIOS ' cf MMERCIAt.BUILDINGS IN TIGARD - MERCIALES DE LOS VECINDARIOS NEIGHBORHOODS? DE TIGARD? htd - - ., ✓k _ -s,4, Preference Survey " AF . „r. "RI 4 1 2 3 „v.., .. F . . . z,,,,, ,...o. , :-.1 _ a - - e a ,... on. • Bit , 44 - -..• ire i ...I _11. . . - , , r� -fe I:. , e Protected Outdoor Multifamily _ Outdoor Space Lighting W/Storefront Active Storefront (;' .4 _ ' itt ss III 111944 • CITY OF Ti g a rd The 5 E's-Tigard's Community Promise: Equity • Environment • Economy• Engagement• Excellence Vs�o 17+,IN.PR..VE.'�iENTS WOULD jQUE MEIORAS MARfAN OUE '� ',AVE YOU*,^RE UKElY TO WALK FUERA MAS PROBABLE OUE USTEr{ R WISE IN TOUR NElCHBORf-LOOD?� =A 4:!NE:,ANDE. EN B!CICIETA EN SU VEC:!NOARIO? c3 Preference Survey �J t Y l .. . _ , --. ,fir, ,._ . i t A L�" _w if - ,- , ...,_ - -,- ,! • t ,.. A.r �, 4 1 • • \ _, i ' Continuous Parks/ •p . qv d :114 k . Well-lit Trails Comfort / • •' i.a�as Sidewalks Landscape .�� • Safe 4.::a Pedestrian • • • • ..0- Crossings ® •• • fe•En Er• MO ei14 , -,. .ti• • CITY OF Tiga rd The 5 E's—Tigard's Community Promise: Equity• Environment • Economy• Engagement • Excellence Community Cafe • A one-on-one conversation with ' " �'' ..... _' a CD staff person. r, • Popular activity which sparked . ,, meaningful conversations 1 • About 40 one-on-one ---I conversations completed r / V -'i -- --4 . _ 4000: ri, *A / ii-- , izi Staff member and community residents engaged in a one-on-one conversation. CITY OF The 5 E's—Tigard's Community Promise: Equity• Environment• Economy• Engagement• Excellence Tigard Thank you ! TIG /\ RD HIOME Housing, Opportunity, Aft Mobility, & Enterprise lilt ... •a • imltllli°" • • 4 rnl�d II . . •. •a I '�"rfrl, r + .y mi Iiui mit 4 I. • • • • c."� ttl . ' . 7:- . �- "ice y4 0 0 Ilk a 4k r �1�� dry► ••••i • _. .-. . CITY OF The S E's—Tigard's Community Promise: Equity• Environment • Economy • Engagement• Excellence Tigard SUPPLEMENTAL.PACKET FOR 7//s-/426i9, s T I G A R D (DATE OF MEETING) HOME Preference Survey Results Housing,Opportunity,Mobility,&Enterprise Q1:What types of business and services do you wish were Q2:What design features would fit well for commercial closer to your home? buildings in tigard neighborhood? 32% �®rn 1 2 3 «< 1 ^_alth i Wellness cyo% n Market I Cafe Protected Outdoor Multifamily Active Storefront Outdoor Space Lighting W/Storefront JAM Restaurants ReMIS i Goods f. Q3:Which improvement would make you more likely to walk or bike in your neighborhood I. a t Continuous Parks/ Well-lit Trails Comfort/ Sidewalks Landscape Protected Bike • Lanes e;: SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR -,/,s li-/i="-D ,-,— TIGARD Preference Board 1 (DATE OF MEETING) i/e/17 b HOME Which types of businesses and services do you wish were Housing,Opportunity,Mobility,&Enterprise closer to your home? , . 1 _. 7 r... Es ii-,,F\4 II:, 11" HPV-1 TYPES OF `;';',LPSt,,LS _ , ..:„ i il , ... rkailt c-- .. TIFIns DE NEGC._.aOS If SE.kf SERVCLS DO YO.c, I ‘.9V;Skii WE .. L- '''' ' VrlOS rESEAM ‘.. .. • ' ESTUVILRAN ,u .,,L, ASA? A 'E7 'CLOSER TO YOUR R---,0tvi\ a MAS .CERCA. DE S CA SA? -.;•e-:''',..446::47,t;":;;-m i.`vs ': .• , . '1 '.1 A,; Nov '44410 -4..1,.'. ..:.`,..:-.. • I i,t0il• IPIP-r ._,,.. ,.446/0 q'.„-4..-t.• -.1.51.1.:•kj ; ' Fil, „lily '''' 4. I ilft eV Liu,':(111, .."•••...... q _ . _ •.,:,..4.- . A. Ohm, ri-----4j war' . 4 ? • ,, vn- 0•.,.,IS''''j:i. • , I --__-,.--„-.-_-7.-- -- .,.. • . 1, ,,, ._-_, - ., . ,r,--... 'W, • ..,A i k ii 1 14 k . • -- \ , • ri .). I; ; • it 4 0 , , , A. - •'- ':-- 1 '",'' - '— s'). L,•>- i e ,.'IV. < 0 a -• IL-.,„....i- .....,- _ a........ _ li f. ' II ON/ ill. .'‘ ,_.,.# - — __- .L. , -.....7-,;*• ' ,i,,,..4 '' - ;- -1,6arfil AND, pt_ .. - - . •••• ESTUDI,OS s a ESS , WEI 1 N DE SMUD st' I NINC Pt SToUtt'•,NTES S '-'40_ tg-moil _ WE.NESTAR - (.eolifik 0 .ree-wtlyL ,- - . , - poosic • 0 W . -1 1 111 " . - , :'„,.,..,..,. •,. sts,4,,N.,,,i -: , ,! . •:::44:. il-t-j:44„,, ,::„ .1" ii -, ---• „, ,, .44E1 k ''' . 1,..A. '1;7 ;'.. *,/ • 'v6, .., '• --2-... slit--,..._ ,, ,. , 4 1111' '...."".."............................. \-1 SEVIN ' --, .„.. . ., , „ . . .4 .,, MARK &C E # . ..., ., 'Ai.„.," s2ii...'...- . '_,.-.1", 1 k---:- • I • 1 . o• t Ai 1 k t,e-'• 1 ._. _ 7 ....... ), , - • , .- . :11 - 7 , . , • (pi / 1 , . .. , A,..1,-. 1.,_ 1 , .. ‘: Al . ALI-Fr": t ... .,v 4: - . ,, . 1141.4.0f‘•,:i„.,,.. ,, *A... A.. ! . ,, • • ,,i , , , , _-r , i ler•r" .. ' \ .. P I, at- ! _ -,.. , lil.:47 ••- r.:, k 4 ,r f - e- l‘,; 'iA. ,1'. 1). - : -.rasa,ta.s.a.-r...- ,: r...7 ......_ ., • _ RE.T,,:•,./ , . _....___:____.... .....-.,-)Y LRCM --- -- (kRkET SERVICES N'R% ,I'A,/ CAFE I,' „,,,__ MERCADO/ WA 4111•0-- 1.1 • --1.•-• -I'Tti-14. -' '''"411 CA.FETER'ifik — ,........____ - I) Ail L57_ • - Ip 5 r 0\tv a 5h(OP Pet 1 ,..... ir Co he '-. , : __ % (7 ,• /i . k r, rn 1,46,6\b, 5hov , .._, . .. ,*-,. . .... ,. _ . wv.",. ----- it' i •: ;.,„ . . ,,, i , ;..,1 ..,i'..;'':. e... •:•• .4'.4Y.. ,:ite'._d . II. -..t,. ,.. - _ ., - ' kik • ---'` -- • ;-. -- • _. _ ' 0'' 4 - L'- ,., ' :•'!W•.1kIr , ll -- ,_ ......--.:.-•L• ,-7.7:4", , '-.2,--------: ----.:7----.7'7-:-'-'17,-----27--- L.... .. . -- „-5. •40 :4: 1" 1 ''''''' ' II „..- ,1111 _, Rit 1 4 ' - ' , ' ..,,,s ,.•4 i 11 - - .1r 1• "-"--il---'-- k., ----, 1 .1.!IIPItb a lirii - ,-, • ",.. gr.;4- 11,Pe't So° gi —i' VA ilil A Ali IN ,ii :- -"':;;i-,- .. - - ; _ iiit yr ,.kili' li...) -1 'I . 4,61, .4 11,, drim ti r tryff-7 ----*,- ". ,-, -., . . ..._ _ - -, ----- r -.. , - ,lii.= lioNio I, in win 1111 1 Ilil 1J V • _ .11-1:7, I 41 ' .111' 1All 110 *11 1i'qi I il 110, 'I'm_.. el-.4. '-- r i 41,1 Li II IC*1 Al l'il)11 ti _,,, — - _ . r' 11 -' ''.-1.4.1krr --- ,-- skr rikt4. Ir gl • 4 - II 1 -I, _ — -0%,...,1".itirmir ...--- --..„,qtery 1 4, i.:-.r-•'. . r,,410110,5g, •• " - "- •-17. 111. - - , 1. 5w, • - _ RETAIL/ .-J, ,.- .• .- ,--- --, --- ERCIO GO PR-, GODS •'..:- • CHILDCARE. .-, •. CUIDADO • . DUCTOS IN FANTIL , .- - __-, .,_, . , :' .. - ' ' --- -— - . VINIA6tf 0 psis tc(9 6 44 skicK1-, ,-----) 0 140'. "Th TKARD HOME: ‘ \ to laitii0111'4 \ FEET 4111$ I I G A R D Preference Board 2 HOME Which design features would fit well for commercial buildings Housing,Opportunity,Mobility,&Enterprise in Tigard neighborhoods? i N� _ �: ! .N iEN N LOS ED F CICS � i� U LD N N TIGA..D CO R' CIN RI S N G 1 . D T R ? .am 1 -'y .* � IIIII P — _.':ili 1.11.1tP ''' . . .. Lt• , ,a� ®r:). ^� • .�.. 1 ` j p- y. . 1 .. __, ,...... ..... . • ir i S• STOREFRONT 111, . _ eR�IA! 1 . I L >d:. i,. T•. W/MULTTFA":ILV N e t Lr r SIuNAGE 1•. .�. � t — HOUSING ;_ r LLT±Fq..li.:RcS .�. ,yIp1L f. .. . • ,,,s, 1•••••• �., 4 ..S1k2: � •r • ...iv- i -� a� ". Y, t`' ;:•is a («� - 1 � •1._ •• .� # r 0'M ♦ i' ,1!Z• i''T ,1 ' io• r ...,, ..• . • -.,,-,,,,, _ ....,,,....._. , iii.„,, 4. , 41:1,,, . 6„1„..• ,,,p, 1 , •,-- ---_, - , .-- .--x.! ',.- _, ,... , ; ,, i_• y ' :;. -- - - s. r_ — _ LIWITINU .,r ' r ; • • '' al • � V.e. Mt� Y�" �N y ' !-•__ *_•_ • f ---: r -'. , c • i 1. .• , . -lilt I IV r1 , M1 '... • , - LOCAL COMERCIAL 1 ± ^ a+ 1-,` Co �'I J CON ESPACI R . 'BVYC7U$ fin. ERCIAL I Ir �1 CON ONESPACIO \ CC1M1 ERCIAL ( EVIDENTE ST RC NT oft t - r _ •• INTERIORES PARA EL •USE • I USG DE LOS CLIENTES MJ1 r FIRST 1 r FEET TIGARD Preference Board 3 HOME Which improvements would make you more likely to walk or Housing,opportunity,Mobility,&Enterprise bike in your neighborhood? wr. .,1. ,t4 IMPROVEMENTS WOULD LQUE �MEJORAS (HARIAN QUE ,� -'LP tqCRE ul .EL Li Tr,: y1/4FAL*.._ SKE riz a. ERA M A-S PROBABLE Olin USTEt . ;7,f• ..•••.,• Y. - lit:‘ ,FC'u4 You7s 'f4, ,Kz.Hookili cur. ( 11 C NDARIO? • lier. III- • fr ' .,:v tli: ' ., • •. - :g:.i. AP f °1:;..0 . if -;,t,• litir r •om y .. w} is t ,'.`►i, f'.4.::. ,..„..1‘.11,0k.,4%.1.'444;11,;•:.;: 1 .......4,mi. , A i. „. .., .... .. .t. .•• . .1, - ... ., v,isr. • . -1 . - - ,•• t illili\_. i. '. ' (. Lei.,. !I. 3 41111 rillrlk ' f. ,,i; • ,)ti, ..„ ....:.,. . ',..i., ,...4. .4(t. i, ii,•• . _1 . .., _ . -NIL la ik-- - _0 . . .,, {• if ,.,,t.: ..,, .,; . .w .::-. . 2‘. r • , R.:TEC TE(: - I ES {. 1 Wl IET c �. PAR(:UF.i iiit <e i kMES i , . �e+e� SENDL • PR.:TEL:Jr- .' rw,y5 % .. -s. rici r aisliginiff; _ __ ___ ..;;.....H.„......r.....J.,„,..,__. ... _ . _ • ___ .._ __ . . ..............,, ..._. Ih. r-1. .4. —7:,, --_ ...." *.:060011.: , le, "%_. •M 's hyl f .a- a .4 eigio)114 • ' .."); • ..' 0.str . ... . : .:,.( e i . . . : N- - ...:.`t • _ _ I. SAFE '.� <R f GCS iNTERACTIV • ARTE Pt:M.1. - PECESTR¢AN �' t s PEAtd"NALES PS,k'SLE-.ART/ INTERACTIV !Ri"SSENt1S • • SEs� R= S STORY ALk, • • PASEO NARRATIVO 'vS 1 i .'- . f _ ,,i0 '• - . toiri',.T..,.•' +.• <�� � x .\ '4' r , y ;$< ib. „w �YP� lS. ,► F. *z .+i.t to F ' � :-.e.1V'''- ' ' ...m 40 .... ,,, ;. .,; " 4,. ,... . .., .... ,4„,,,-.. A. � �� a ? ;,'�r . �::NTINUOJS ACERAS C FCdRT/ W1/4 • •ELL-L!T • • • CCNTINUAS Y LSC • Cj�;.�O[SaDe D/ '{)EWALKS BIEN II.UMINADAS PAISAIE er • it, ri • liatialtalaill ErtERRN 4'4,